Annexure P-

In the Court of Ms. Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, Appellate Authority,

Gurdaspur

Rent Appeal No 47/2003

Date of Institution 24/04/2003

RBT No at dated 05/08/04

Date of Decision 16/12/2006

1. Sh. Subash Chander son of Sh. Wed Parkash son of Sh. Kanshi
Ram, resident of Mohalla Julkian, Batala.
2. Sh. Happy Kumar

Appellants

Vs.

1. Sh. Dev Bhushan son of Sh. Krishan Gopal c/o M/S Garg
Trading Com, Randhor road, Near Masjid, Yamuna Nagar,
Haryana.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Aggarwal son of Sh. Krishan Gopal, Kothi
No.248. Sector 14, Karnal, Haryana.
3. Sh. Mohinder Pal Aggarwal son of Sh. Krishan Gopal D.B.N.
road Batala,
4. Sh. Dinesh Kumar alias Desa son of Sh. Krishan Gopal,
shopkeeper at Chakri Bazar, Blatala.
5. Smt. Kanta (daughters of late Sh. Krishan Gopal residents of
6. Smt. Sharda Gali Naiyan, Ohri Chowk, batala.)

... Respondents.

Appeal u/s 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Act No.
II of 1949), 1949, against the order dated 17/03/2003 passed by the
court of Sh. Kuldip Singh, PCS, Rent Controller, Batala in Rent Appl.
No.7 of 16/7/99 whereby the application of the applicants/appellants
was dismissed with costs.

Claim in appeal: For the setting aside and reversal of the order dated
17/03/2003 and for the passing of an ejectment order against the
respondents by the acceptance of the appeal with costs of both the
courts.

Present: Sh. R. K. Sarup, Adv. for appellants,

 Sh. Ashok Tiwari Adv. for respondents no.1 to 3

Sh. Sanjiv Gupta, Adv. for respondent No. 4

JUDGMENT

1. Appellants Subash Chander and Happy KUMAR have filed the

present rent appeal, aggrieved against order dated 17/02/2003
passed by the court of Sh. Kuldip Singh, Rent Controller,
Batala vide which the application of the appellants/applicants
for the ejectment of the respondents from a Dohatta shop was
dismissed with costs.
2. Applicants now appellants filed an application under section 13
of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the ejectment
of the respondents from a Dohatta shop marked by letters
ABCD and shown in pink colour in the site plan, situated at
Chakri Bazar, Batala. The applicants claimed themselves to be
landlord of the demised premises alleged to be under
possession of the respondents at the rent of Rs.25/- per month.
Respondent No.1 and Krishan Gopal son of Ram Chand
Aggarwal (now deceased) took the shop in dispute on rent as a
partnership firm under the name and style of M/S Krishan
Gopal Dev Bhushan at the rent of Rs. 25/- per month vide rent
note dated 04/07/1971 from Batalia Ram Sekhri, since died,
and after his death respondent No.1 and said Krishan Gopal
attorned in favour of Raghunandan Sekhri and as such
relationship of landlord and tenant exists between
Raghunandan Sekhri and respondent No.1 qua the shop in
dispute. It is further submitted that Raghunandan Sekhri and
his brother Pawan Kumar Sekhri sold the Dohatta shop in
dispute and the building constructed over the said shop to the
applicants vide registered sale deed dated 06/01/1999 for a
consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, and as such the relationship of
landlord and tenant existed between the petitioner and
respondent No.1 qua the demised premises. The said Krishan
Gopal died intestate at Batala on 09/02/1999 and the
respondents being the sons and daughters of Krishan Gopal are
his legal heirs even qua the tenancy rights of the shop in
dispute. The respondents are liable to be ejected from the
demised promise on the ground of non-payment of arrears of
 rent despite demand, the respondent No. 1 and said Krishan
Gopal had transferred as in any way sublet their tenancy rights
of the dismissed shop in favour of respondent No.4 without the
consent and permission of said Raghunandan Sekhri previous
landlord. It is further alleged that respondent No.1 and said
Krishan Gopal were working out of Batala for the last several
years and they had parted with the possession of the demised
shop and since then respondent No.4 Dinesh Kumar alone has
been in exclusive possession of the demised shop and in
carrying on his business of Karyana in the demised shop. It is
further submitted that the Petitioner No.1 requires the demised
shop for his own use for setting up a business of cloth
merchant, the petitioner No.1 has been helping his father in the
business of sale of towels etc. and had not been doing any
independent business. Petitioner No.1 has been pulling on with
his life with the help of his father and he is now to start his own
independent business in the demised shop and he has not
occupied in the urban area of Batala any such premises nor he
has vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the
commencement of this Act. It is submitted that all the requests
made by the petitioners to the respondents to vacate the shop
in dispute gone unheard, hence they have filed the Petition.
3. Upon notice respondents appeared through counsel and filed
written reply admitting the fact that they have taken the shop
in dispute from Batalia Ram Sekhri on rent at the rate of
Rs.25/- per month and as such the relationship of landlord and
tenant existed between the parties. It is denied that the
petitioners have got any connection with the shop in dispute. It
is also denied that Krishan Gopal had ever attorned in favour
of Raghunandan Sekhri. Said Raghunandan Sekhri was not the
only heir of said Batalia Ram Sekhri. He was only one of the co-
sharers/landlord. It is admitted that Krishan Gopal was of
course a tenant under the legal heirs of Batalia pam Sekhri and
the relationship of landlord tenant existed between him and the
other respondents with the hire of Batalia Ram Sekhri. The
respondents denied the existence, legality and validity of the
sale deed alleged to have been executed by the legal heirs of
Batalia Ram Sekhri in favour of the petitioner. It is also denied
that they are liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute on
 the ground that they have not paid the arrears of rent. It is
denied that respondent No. 1 or said Krishan Gopal transferred
or sublet the tenancy rights in favour of respondent No.4 as
alleged, Respondent No.4 is the brother of respondent No.1 and
is son of Krishan Gopal deceased. It is denied that respondent
No.1 or Krishan Gopal had been working out of Batals for the
last several years as alleged, During the spell of terrorism
respondent No.1 was asked by his family to shift to Yamuna
Nagar for setting up a home there for the entire family if the
need be. Krishan Gopal never left Batala and continued residing
and carrying on his business at Batala nor he has left his
business in the demised premises which was being carried out
under the name and style M/S Dev Bhushan & brothers. Prior
to that Krishan Gopal was carrying on his business under the
said name as sole proprietor when he took respondent No.4 as
partner therein w. e. f. 01/04/1973 and as such no question
arises as to sub-letting the demised premises. It is denied that
petitioner requires the demises premises for his own use for
setting his business as alleged. It is denied that petitioner No.1
has got any surplus money for starting his business as alleged.
It is alleged that the real facts are that the petitioners had
asked the respondents to let the petitioners have negotiations
with the land owners for the purchase of the entire premises so
that there may not be any competition which may result in
increase of the price and that the parties will get the sale of
respective premises under their tenancy in a proportionate
matter. It is alleged by the respondents that the petitioners
however dal have acted in a malafide manner and secretly got
the sale deed of the premises executed in their favour while
keep the respondents out of the picture. The remaining
averments made by the petitioners in the petition have been
denied. and prayer for dismissal of the petition was made.
4. Replication was flied and from the pleadings the parties
following issues were framed by ld. lower court:
1. Whether tender of rent is invalid and illegal? OPA
2. Whether the respondent No.1 has sublet the demised
shop in favour of respondent No.4 without written
consent of the applicant/landlord? OPA
 3. Whether petitioner No.1 requires the demised premises
for his own use and occupation? OΡΑ.
4. Relief.

5. In order to prove their case the petitioners examined Ramesh

Chand as AW-1, Mohinder Partap as AW-2, Satish Chander as
AW-3, Ramesh Chander as AW-4, Ram Murti as AW-5, Gurdial
Singh as AW-6, Naresh Kumar as AW-7, Happy Kumar as AW-
8, Subash Chander as AW-9 and closed their evidence. On the
other hand respondents examined Kuldip Singh as RW-1, Lal
Chand as RW-2, Dinesh Kumar as RW-3 and closed their
evidence.
6. After analysing the evidence led by the parties and hearing the
arguments advanced by ld. counsel for the parties, Ld. Rent
Controller decided issues No.1 to 3 against the petitioners and
dismissed the application of the appellants/applicants with
costs vide order dated 17/03/03.
7. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 17/03/2003 passed
by Sh. Kuldip Singh, Rent Controller, Bata1 the applicants/
appellants have preferred the present rent appeal.
8. Notice of appeal was given to respondents. Respondents No.1,
to 3 and respondent No.4 appeared through their counsel and
opposed the appeal.
9. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have perused
the record with their able assistance.
10. Ld. counsel for the appellants argued that the Petitioner
require the demises shop for his person use for setting up a
business of cloth merchant. The Ld. Rent Controller has
decided issues no.3 against the facts of the case. There is no
pleading of the respondent that respondent No. 1 was carrying
on the business of property broker and by a single transaction
of sale a person does not became a property dealer. The Ld.
Rent Controller did not appreciate the fact that Chakri Bazar,
Batala is the main shopping centre of Batala, whereas Ohri
chowk Bataka is a backward area. It has been specifically
pleaded and proved that Subash Chander requires the shop in
dispute for his own use for starting the business of cloth
merchant. The shop at Ohri Chowk Batala was in possession of
the tenant Harish Chander and the same could not be got
 vacated prior to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court
cited as ‘1996(1) Civil Court Cases 110(SC)’ before which the
landlord could not get evicted a shop for his own use from the
tenant. The respondent did not lead evidence on the file that
Subash Chander is doing any business and he does not require
shop for his own use. Reliance was placed on the decisions ‘S.
P. Sethi V. R. R. Gulati and Others 2006 (2) Rent Control
Reporter 205 Subhash Chander Chawla Vs. Gurdial Singh
2004(2) Rent Control Reporter 362, Joginder Pal Vs Naval
Kishore Behal 2002(1) Rent Control Reporter 582 and Harbilas
Rai Bansal and anr. y. State of Punjab 1995(2) Rent Control
Reporter 672.’
11. On the other hand ld. counsel for the respondents argued
that the Ld. Rent Controller has rightly held that petitioner No.1
does not require the demised shop for his own use and
occupation. Earlier the petitioner had purchased a building
consisting of one shop and one house in the year 1987 but he
sold the same in the your 1998. Petitioner Subash Chander is
doing the business of property dealer. It can not be expected
that he is not doing any business, then how he is surviving.
Since he is doing the business of property dealer and he has
earlier sold the building, therefore he has filed the ejectment
petition merely to get the shop ejected from the tenant.
12. So far as the relationship of landlord and tenant between
the petitioners and respondent No.4 10 concerned the Ld. Rent
Controller has held that demised promises were rented out to
M/s Krishan Gopal Dev Bhushan by Batalia Ram Sekhri who
sold the same to the petitioners. Krishan Gopal has died and
respondents No. 1 to 6 are legal heirs of Krishan Gopal. It has
been held that respondent No. 1 and Krishan Gopal have never
sublet tenancy rights in favour of respondent No.4. Rather he is
in possession of the demised premises as a tenant being
partner of the firm M/S Dev Bhushan and Brothers. These
findings have not been challenged by either party and it is
deemed as admitted that relationship of landlord and tenant
exist between the parties.
13. section 13(3) (a) (1) of East Punjab Rent Restrict Act,
1949 provides a ground for ejectment of the tenant on the
ground of personal necessity. The evidence on record shows
 that the landlord does not own any other non-residential
premises to establish his business nor he has vacated any
premises after the commencement of the Act. In such
circumstances no malafide can be attributed to the landlord
with regard to the requirement of premises for establishing his
business. It has been held by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court in ‘2006(2) Rent Control Reporter 205 (Supra)’ as under:-

“12. The need of the landlords has to be examined

broadly and reasonably considering their social status
and other requirements. The Apex court in the case of
'Saria Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
1998(2) RCR(Rent), 5331 (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases
119, has held that Rent Controller shall not proceed on
the presumption that requirement is not bona fide. When
a landlord assures that he requires the building for his
own occupation and shows a prima facie case, it is open
to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the
requirement of landlord is bona fide. It is often said by
the Courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms of
the landlord as to how he can adjust himself without
getting possession of the tenanted premises, while
deciding the question fides of the requirement of the
landlord, it is suite unnecessary to make an endeavour
an to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.
Moreover, the question of bona fide personal need is
purely a question of fact."

In ‘2004(2) Rent Contral Reporter 362(Supra)’ the need of the

landlord for having two shops for his business was held
bonafide by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana In
‘2002(1) Rent Control Reporter 582(Supra)’ the need of non-
residential premies for the office of son of the landlord was held
bona fide by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

14. Landlord Subash Chander when appeared as PW-5 has

specifically stated that he along with his brother Happy Kumari
have purchased the demised shop for the purpose of doing
business. Earlier he was working with his father. In the cross-
examination he has stated that since his father was old, as he
has been helping his father during the period from 19__ to
 1995. He has specifically stated that he is not having any other
shop in city Batale. However, he has admitted that they had
purchased one shop and one house in the year 1987 and it was
sole in the year 1998 and it we occupied by a tenant Harish
Kumar. Since this shop was not vacant, therefore it can not be
said that the landlord had parted with the possession of the
said shop or that he has vacated a shop situated within the
municipal limits of Batala. The observations of the Ld. Rent
Controller that why he has not got vacated the said shop are
not a sound reason to decline the relief to the landlord, Merely
on this ground the need of the landlord can not be doubted. It
is a non- residential building and prior to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme court in 1995(2) Rent Control Reporter
672(Supra). The non-residential buildings could not be got
vacated on the ground of personal necessity. In the said decided
case the Hon'ble Supreme court of India has struck down the
amendment made in section 13(3)(a) by amending Act 29 of
1956 which deprived the landlord of their rights to seek
ejectment from non-residential premises. After this the original
provisions of Section 13(3) (a) of the Act were restored. Neither
the said shop was lying vacant, so the landlord could not
occupy the said shop nor could be got vacated on the ground of
personal necessity, so, merely selling the said shop can not be
a ground to doubt the bonafide of the requirement of the
landlord.
15. Another reason has been given by Ld. Rent Controller
that the petitioner has failed to prove the source of Bank
Deposit of Rs. 43233/-. It was observed that this amount was
deposited one month prior to the filing of the ejectment petition,
so this shows that the amount was deposited for sake of filing
the petition. It is well settled that the landlord is not required to
show the source of income to run business for seeking
ejectment on the ground of personal necessity. The requirement
of the petitioner is genuine and his requirement can not be
doubted on the reasons given by the Rent controller as
discussed above.
16. In view of the above reasons I conclude that the findings
of the Ld. Rent Controller on issue No. 3 are liable to be set
aside and it is held that petitioner entitled to ejectment of the
 respondents on the ground of personal necessity. This issue is
decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
17. The findings of the Ld. Rent Controller on issues No.1
and 2 were not assailed. Even otherwise there is no illegality in
the said findings. Proper and legal tender of rent has been made
on first date of hearing, so it is a valid tender and the petitioner
is not entitled to ejectment of the ground of non-payment of
rent. The landlord has failed to prove that respondent No.1 has
sublet the has premises to respondent No.4. Hence issue No.2
is also been rightly decided.
18. In view of this the present appeal is accepted. The order
of Ld. Rent Controller is set aside and ejectment order is passed
in favour of petitioners and against respondents. The
respondents are directed to deliver the vacant possession of the
shop in question to the petitioner. Memo of costs be prepared,
File be consigned to Record Room.

Pronounced. Dt: 16/12/2006, Appellate Authority.

Gurdaspur.

Memo of costs

Appellant Respondent.
1. Stamp for memorandum Rs. 13.00 ------
of Appeal
2. Stamp for powers Rs. 18.75 Rs. 25.00
3. Service of Process Rs. 2-00 ------
4. Pleader’s fee Not taxed for want of certificate
5. Misc. Rs. 6-25 -------
Total: Rs. 40-00 Rs. 25.00

Giver under my hand and the seal of the court this 16 th

day of December, 2006.

(Harpreet Kaur Jewan)

Appellate Authority, Gurdas Fur.

 Annexure P-

Subash Chander Vs Dev Bhushan

AW 1

Kanta Dio Krishan Gopal w/o Ravinder Kumar Ro Omkar Nagar

Gali No. 3 Phagwara and also at Anand Vihar Batala on SA

Recalled for cross-examination by Sh. AK Joshi, counsel for

respondents/petitioner

We are two sisters and four brothers namely me i.e. Kanta. Sharda,
Dev Bhushan, Pawan, Dinesh, Mohinder. I am eldest among all
brothers and sisters. And thereafter Dev Bhushan, Sharda, Pawan.
Dinesh. Mohinder as per their age. I was in tender age when our
father Krishan Gopal took the shop on rent and same might be 65/70
years back. I cannot tell exact year of creation of tendency. I do not
know what was the rate of rent initially at the time of creation of
tendency. I also do not know the present rate of rent. I do not know if
the rent deed was written or not. I cannot tell the length and breadth
of the shop in dispute. I have seen the shop in dispute from outside
voluntarily I rarely entered in the shop in dispute. I do not remember
when I have seen the shop in dispute voluntarily said I have seen
shop in dispute prior to my marriage. Earlier my father was running
shop in dispute. I cannot say if Dinesh Kumar was sitting with our
father in the shop in dispute during his life time. My father was
expired about 19-20 years ago. After the death of my father Dinesh
Kumar is sitting in the shop in dispute. At present Dinesh Kumar is
running the shop in dispute. I was married in the year 1968 at
Phagwara. Sharda is also married at Phagwara but I do not remember
year of her marriage. She is married since more than 40 years. Now
the days Dev Bhushan is residing at Yamuna Nagar. I do not
remember since when he is residing at Yamuna Nagar. But it might
be about 25 years. Pawan Kumar is residing at Karnal about 25
years. Mohinder Pal is residing at Anand Vihar Batala. He is doing the
karyana business at dera road. My husband is running the business
of sanitary at Phagwara and my son is sitting with his father.
Husband of Sharda is running the electrical business at Phagwara
and her son is also sitting with his father. My name is Kanta. It is
wrong to suggest that my name is also Kamal Kanta. I am
matriculate. I mostly sign in Hindi. It is wrong to suggest that I also
used to sign in English. I do not remember in which language Sharda
used to sign. She never signed in my presence. I do not remember in
which language Dinesh Kumar used to sign. It is wrong to suggest
that I gave my objection in the execution under the name of Kamal
Kanta. I do not know Subhash Chander and Happy respondents. I
never met them. I am in less talking terms with Dinesh Kumar since
last 14-15 years. There was no specific quarraling between me and
Dinesh Kumar but there are several other things in the family. Dinesh
Kumar is having one daughter and I think 3 sons. I am not having
much visiting terins on joys with Dinesh Kumar. All my children are
married. Dinesh Kumar and his family. did not attend marriage of my
children. It is correct that today I came in the Court with Dinesh
Kumar. I come from Phagwara today morning. Dinesh Kumar met me
today in the Court only. I came in Batala court today for first time
only. My advocate in this case is Arvind Gupta. Dinesh Kumar has no
roll for engaging the said advocate by me. It is wrong that Dinesh
Kumar has engaged the said advocate for me. I never visited the Court
except today. I cannot tell the situation of the shop in dispute towards
East. North, West and South. I use to visit to Batala after 15.30 days.
I do not know if the main case is pending since last 20 years. I came
to know about the said proceedings about 4-5 years back when some
official of the Court went there and talked about this case was arisen.
I cannot tell the exact date. At that time I was not present at the shop.
This fact was told to me by my servant which I employed in shop in
dispute. His name is Deepak. I am paying him Rs. 5000 PM. He is
residing in the area of Hathi Gate Batala. I do not know if my
husband is income tax payer or not. Deepak is not employee of
Dinesh but is employed by me and Sharda in the shop in dispute
from our side. He is serving at the shop since the last 8-10 years. I
am not maintaining the record of monthly payment to Deepak. I do
not know if my sister Sharda is income tax payee or not. Deepak is
not visiting to us at Phagwara. We use to have telephonically
conversation with him. We have not written any partnership with
Dinesh Kumar however we are having the share in the business. I
cannot produce any record regarding the record of account in the
shop in dispute. It is wrong to suggest that I am not having any share
in the business. It is further wrong to suggest that I have constitute a
false story about Deepak. Deepak is used to talk to me after about a
week. Deepak never informed about the pendency about the present
case except above mentioned incident which I have narrated. It is
wrong to suggest that I along-with my sister Sharda appeared
through counsel in the appeal which was pending in District Court
Gurdaspur. Voluntarily we were never aware about any such appeal. I
identified my signature on application U/o 9 R 13 dated 01.11.2018
in this file. I cannot identify the signature of Sharda as I have already
stated. Signature on application U/o 9 R 13 by Sharda was not done
in my presence. I cannot say my sister Sharda used to sign in which
language. I have seen certified copy of power of attorney dated
28.07.2003 which is now Mark A and the same does not bear my
signature at point A. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately
denying my signature on Mark A. I do not know about any
proceedings in the High Court or Supreme Court and its fate. i have
first time seen power of attorney Mark A when you have shown me
now in the Court and prior to that I have never seen the said
document. It is wrong to suggest that I have engaged Sh. Ashok
Tiwari and Sh. Ashok Sharma Advocate Gurdaspur as my counsel in
the appeal. It is wrong to suggest that I along-with my sister Sharda
was well aware regarding the ejectment proceedings pending at Batala
as well as appeal in appellate court Gurdaspur, High Court
Chandigarh, and Supreme Court of India. It is wrong to suggest that I
was also well aware regarding the order of Exparte which was passed
by the rent controller Batala against me and my sister Sharda. It is
also wrong to suggest that I have created a false and 38

concocted story regarding the time of knowledge of the exparte decree.

II is also wrong to suggest that I never remain in possession over the
shop in dispute. It is wrong to suggest that I have filed the present
application for setting aside the exparte decree at the instance of
Dinesh Kumar. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely.

S/d-

R.O. & A.C. Simran Singh, PCS

Kanta CJJD/ Batala

15.03.2019
 Annexure P-

Subash Chander Vs Dev Bhushan

RW-1 Shri Sarwan Singh, Record Clerk, District Court, Gurdaspur.

On S.A. Stated that I have brought the summoned file titled as "
Subash Chander Vs Dev Bhushan, Rent Appeal No. 47/ 2003, date of
institution 24.04.2003 and date of decision is 16.12.2006 by Ms.
Harpreet Kaur Jiwan. Ld. Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur". I have
seen the certified copy of power of attorney Ex- R1 which is duly
issued by Copying Agency. Sessions Court. Gurdaspur. As per the file
which I have brought today Ex- R1 is the correct as per the original
power of attorney.

XXXX by Shri Arvind Gupta, Adv, counsel for applicant. (document

Ex-R1 is objected to, objection kept open)

It is correct that the original of Ex- R1 is not signed in my presence by

any person nor it was filed in my presence. I have no personal
knowledge about the said power of attorney i.e. Ex- R1. I do not know
Sharda Rani or Kamal Kanta personally nor I can identify their
signatures. I have seen the interim order dated 28.07.2003 on the file
which I have brought today in the court but there is no reference of
filing of any such power of attorney on the file. I have seen all the
Zimni orders from the date of filing of appeal till decision of appeal
but none of the zimni order on the file reflects the filing of power of
attorney on behalf of respondents no. 5 and 6 namely, Kamal Kanta
and Sharda Rani. It is correct that in none of the zimni order there is
any reflect that respondents no. 5 & 6 come personally in the
presence mark. It is correct that in the zimni order dated 29.08.2006
Shri Ashok Tiwari, Advocate was appeared on behalf of respondents
no. 1 to 3 and Shri Ashwani Puri. Advocate for respondent no. 4 and
there is no reference about respondents no. 5 & 6 and similar in the
position in the zimni order dated 07.09.06. 06.11.06. 28.11.06.
14.12.06 and in the final order when the appeal was decided i.e. on
16.12.2006. It is wrong to suggest that Ex-R1 is false, forged and
fabricated document. Vol I have no personal knowledge about Ex- R1.
I can not say anything about the genuineness or ingenuousness of
any signature on Ex- R1 relating to Sharda Rani or Kalam Kanta. Vol
I have no personal knowledge. 1 am only deposing as per official
record. I can not say if the pen of alleged signatures of Kamal Kanta
and Sharda Rani is different than the other pen used for the body
writing and signatures of other respondents. It is wrong to suggest
that I have produced false record and deposed falsely.

S/d-

R.O. & A.C. Jagminder Kaur,

PCS

Sarwan Singh CJJD/ Batala

17.08.2019