rent on the first date of hearing obviously because the existence of
relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. In that situation, the
learned Rent Controller, was not obliged to provide another opportunity
to the tenants to tender the arrears of rent.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-4871-2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.1.2015
Karnail Singh and another
Versus
Paramjit Singh Marwah and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
Citation;AIR 2015(NOC)503 P & H
The instant revision under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab
Urban Rent Restrict Act, 1949 has been filed to challenge the eviction
order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur and affirmed by
the Appellate Authority, holding that there existed relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties, which in fact was being denied
by the petitioner. The eviction of the tenants was claimed on the grounds
inter alia that the tenants were in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.5.2004 and the
premises was required by the landlord for his bona fide use and
occupation as he intended to start his own business in the premises in
question. The eviction petition was instituted on 17.10.2001. Petitioners
and proforma respondents are the successors-in-interest of Late Khushi
Ram. Khushi Ram, executed rent deeds dated 6.6.1969, 11.5.1970 and
CR-4871-2014 (O&M) -2-
26.3.1975 in favour of Sh. Hukam Singh, as the rent used to be increased
from time to time. The rate of rent as per latest rend deed was ` 55/- per
month. Respondent No. 1 is the son of Hukam Singh. The petitioners
and proforma respondents denied the existence of relationship of landlord
and tenant between the parties. It was denied that Sh. Khushi Ram ever
executed the rent notes in question.
2. Learned Rent Controller, framed the following issues and
additional issues from pleadings of the parties:-
“1) Whether applicant is entitled to ejectment? OPA
2) Relief.
Additional issues
1A) Whether there exists no relationship of landlord
and tenants between parties? OPR
1B) Whether applicant has no locus-standi to file this
application? OPA
1C) Whether application is liable to be dismissed for
want of complete information regarding identity
of ownership of property? OPR
1D) Whether Rent Controller has got no jurisdiction
to try this application? OPR
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused
the orders passed by the Courts below and also the paper book.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended
that Sh. Khushi Ram, predecessor of the petitioners and proforma
respondents purchased the property vide sale deed dated 8.8.1988 from
Smt. Kailalsh Kaur who was owner to the extent of 1/4th share in khasra
No. 268 of which the disputed property forms part. The petitioners relied
upon the sale deed dated 8.9.1988 and jamabandies for the years 1986-87
and 1996-97, Exs. R-1 and R-2, respectively, in support of their
ownership of the Kiosk in question. During evidence, the petitioners also
relied upon two more sale deeds dated 3.3.1989 and 25.5.1989.
However, it is an admitted fact that in a suit for permanent injunction a
decree was granted by the Civil Court holding that the petitioners are the
tenants under Hukam Singh, father of respondent No. 1. It was found
that Khushi Ram father of petitioners and also the predecessor of the
proforma respondents was inducted as tenant in the disputed premises
under Hukam Singh father of respondent No. 1 was in fact the admission
in absolute terms about the existence of relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties, from which the petitioners cannot wriggle out.
The learned Appellate Authority observed as under:-
“14. The appellant Jagan Nath has appeared in the
witness box as RW1 to prove the contention raised by
them and testified on affidavit thereby proving
jamabandi for the year 1986-87 of Khasra No.268 as
Ex.R1 and 1996-97 as Ex.R2, 2006-07 as Ex.R3, copy
of sale deed dated 8.8.2008 as Ex.D1 and copy of the
sale deed dated 3.3.1989 as Ex.D2 and copy of sale
deed dated 24.5.1989 as Ex.D3. The respondents/
appellants have tried to prove their ownership over
the property in dispute by virtue of these documents
CR-4871-2014 (O&M) -4-
but in my view, they have not been able to prove that
the property subject matter of the petition bears
Khasra No.268 and that said property is the same
property which is subject matter of sale deed Ex.D1
to Ex.D3. No doubt the site plan similar to the site
plan produced on record by the petitioner as Ex.P 54
is annexed along with the sale deeds but despite the
fact that all these sale deeds are of different dates,
same site plan has been annexed with these sale deeds
just changing the date on the same. So it is clear that
site plan attached with the sale deeds Ex.D1 to Ex.D3
are not correct as per the area and boundaries
mentioned in the body of the sale deeds. Even
otherwise, the whole of the case of the appellants have
been thrashed in the cross-examination of RW1 Jagan
Nath who in his cross-examination has admitted that
his father Khushi Ram died about 7/8 years back and
he used to run the business of sale of vegetables in the
property in dispute. He admitted it as correct that this
Khokha was (being) taken by Khushi Ram from
Hukam Singh and that Paramjit Singh petitioner is
son of Hukam Singh. He also admitted it as correct
that Khushi Ram earlier used to pay the rent of the
Khokha @ Rs.22/- per month to Hukam Singh. He
also admitted that Khushi Ram had executed rent deed
CR-4871-2014 (O&M) -5-
in favour of Hukam Singh regarding the Khokha
above said. This statement of the appellant Jagan
Nath himself proves the case of the
petitioner/respondent/landlord Paramjit Singh. Even
otherwise, in the earlier civil suit between the same
parties titled as Paramjit Singh Vs. Karnail Singh,
Karnail Singh while appearing as DW2 in his crossexamination
has also admitted it as correct that
Khokha was belonging to Hukam Singh who was
father of Paramjit Singh petitioner and earlier his
father used to pay Rs.30/- per month to Hukam Singh
and then he used to pay Rs.55/- per month for that
Khokha. He has also admitted that his father used to
pay above said money as rent to Hukam Singh and
then to his heirs. He has also admitted it as correct
that his father was tenant earlier of Hukam Singh and
then his widow and heirs of Hukam Singh. He has also
admitted it as correct that Paramjit Singh is owner of
the property situated on Railway Road left by Hukam
Singh and then by Krishna Devi. He has also admitted
that it is correct that his father has executed rent deed
in favour of Hukam Singh. Relying upon said
statement made by Karnail Singh as DW2 in that suit
which is proved on record as Ex.A66, judgment
Ex.A67 was passed in that suit for permanent
injunction between the same parties and so these
material documents go to the root of the case and
when there is sufficient evidence on record admitted
by the appellants themselves, there was no necessity
for the petitioner/respondent/landlord to prove the
sale deed in favour of Hukam Singh regarding the
property in dispute. So the statements made by these
witnesses do not prove the stand taken by the
appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has
relied upon the law as laid down by Hon'ble High
Court in case titled as Sukhdev Singh & others Vs.
Sudershan Sewa Trust & others 2013(3) RCR (Civil)
page 588 wherein it has been held that when the
parties are already litigating amongst themselves for
the decision qua ownership of the demised premises,
in such a situation Rent Controller cannot go beyond
its jurisdiction while exercising its powers and can
dismiss the rent petition. However, in the present case,
no other proceedings and litigation regarding the title
of the property in dispute is pending between the
parties and the earlier litigation, it was suit for
permanent injunction which has already been decided
in favour of the respondent no. 1/landlord and in the
present rent petition, same ground was taken by the
respondent/tenant but even in the evidence recorded
CR-4871-2014 (O&M) -7-
in the present petition independently, the appellants
have failed to prove their contention that they are
owners of the property in dispute. It is settled law that
a tenant cannot deny title of his landlord however,
defective it may be so long as he has not openly
restored the possession by surrender to his landlord.
In this, I am supported by the case law of Hon'ble
Apex Court in case titled as Bhogadi Kannababu &
others Vs. Vuggina Pydamma & others 2006(3) CCC
page 348. In the present case also, the appellant in
the cross-examination has admitted that his father was
tenant in the property in dispute and therefore, once it
is admitted and they have not restored the possession
till now, they cannot deny the title of their
landlord.......”
(emphasis laid)
5. It is not disputed that the petitioner-tenants did not tender
rent on the first date of hearing obviously because the existence of
relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. In that situation, the
learned Rent Controller, was not obliged to provide another opportunity
to the tenants to tender the arrears of rent.
6. The Appellate Authority, on this aspect observed as under:-
“ ........it has been held by our Hon'ble Court in a
series of case law including case law titled as
Narinder Singh Vs. Sarabjit Singh Vol.CXL VI (2007-
2) The Punjab Law Reporter page 405, Harish Chand
Vs. Mohinder Singh 2009(1) RCR Page 680, Sandeep
Shahi Vs. Asha Rani, 2010(2) Haryana Law Reporter
page 604, S.K.Kalia Vs. Om Parkash & others 2011
(1) Haryana Law Reporter page 255 that once the
respondent/ tenant denied the relationship of landlord
and tenant, there would be hardly any justification for
the Rent Controller to frame an assessment order in
pursuance to the provisions to proviso to section 13(2)
(1)of the Act and that no opportunity can be given to
the tenant at that stage to make good deficiency in the
arrears of rent. So, in my view learned Rent
Controller has rightly held that there exists
relationship of landlord and tenant between the
parties and the bonafide requirement of the
petitioner/respondent is also established besides that
the respondents/appellants are in arrears of rent since
May, 2000 and therefore, on these grounds they are
liable to hand over the vacant possession of the
demised premises to the petitioner/landlord/
respondent no. 1.”
7. Five Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, held
that the consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court
in revisional jurisdiction under the Rent Control Act is confined to find
out that finding of facts recorded by the court/authority below is
according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of
fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at
without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on
no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if
allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to
correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. To
satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the
impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its
power as an appellate power to re-appreciate or reassess the evidence for
coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot
be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a
court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that
the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order
impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.
8. With the aforesaid observations and findings, there is no
escape from the fact that relationship of the landlord and tenant has been
established and this is a finding of fact on correct appreciation of
evidence by both Courts below for which there is no scope of interference
by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
9. Dismissed.
January 22, 2015 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
No comments:
Post a Comment