I do find that there is no registered sale-deed indicating sale of the demised
premises but it appears that there was some similar kind of arrangement
between Narinder Singh and Piara Singh (presently respondent) by way of
some power of attorney executed by Narinder Singh in favour of Piara
Singh. Though the power of attorney (Ex.P-3) is dated 9.9.2008 and the Will
(Ex.P-4) is dated 12.9.2008, which is later in point of time viz-a-viz the rent
note dated 2.5.2008, but by way of executing the aforesaid power of attorney
and the Will in favour of the respondent-landlord coupled with deposition of
Narinder Singh in Court, it is very apparent that the respondent/landlord had
been acting as a landlord with the consent of said Narinder Singh and
Narinder Singh had never expressed any objection for the same. The
execution of the Will in his favour also goes a long way to show that there
was no dispute inter-se between the present landlord and Narinder Singh.
Even if there is no formal sale-deed in favour of the present respondentPiara
Singh, still it is well settled that a person can be a landlord even
without having ownership rights. The above-stated facts leave no manner of
doubt that it is Piara Singh and not Narinder Singh, who is the landlord.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-3663-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-29.5.2018
Ashok Kumar Vs Piara Singh
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
1. By way of filing this revision petition, the petitioner/tenant assails order
dated 3.4.2018 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, whereby an
ejectment order passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, has been
upheld.
2. The respondent/landlord had filed an ejectment petition stating therein that
the petitioner had been inducted as a tenant in the demised premises on
2.5.2008 by way of executing a rent-deed, on rent @ ` 4,300/- per month,
but since the tenant had stopped paying rent from June 2008 and had not
paid the same despite repeated requests, therefore, his ejectment was sought
on account of non-payment of rent.
3. The ejectment petition was resisted by the petitioner, wherein a stand was
taken that in fact the respondent is not the landlord of the demised premises
and that the petitioner had taken the demised premises on rent from one
Narinder Singh on 5.3.2008 and that he had been paying rent to the said
Narinder Singh up to 31.1.2011.
4. The parties were put to proof on the following issues:-
1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the
demised premised property? OPP
2. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent? OPP
3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable since there is no
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPR
4. Relief.
5. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned Rent
Controller upon appraisal of the evidence on record held that a relationship
of tenant and landlord does exist amongst the parties and that since the
petitioner, while denying the relationship, had not paid any rent to the
landlord, therefore, the petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent and
consequently ordered his ejectment. Upon an appeal having been filed by the
petitioner, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings, which have
been challenged by way of filing the present revision petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order,
has submitted that the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned
Appellate Authority fell in error in relying upon the rent note dated 2.5.2008,
which was in fact disputed by the petitioner and had not been proved by the
tenant at the appropriate stage and that it was only at the stage of rebuttal
evidence that attesting witness of the same had been examined. The learned
counsel has further submitted that there is no evidence regarding purchase of
the demised premises by the respondent-landlord and that the alleged power
of attorney dated 9.9.2008 (Ex.P-3) had been executed after the alleged rent
note dated 2.5.2008 and in these circumstances, the alleged rent note was
executed at the time when the respondent-landlord had not been duly
authorized to execute the same.
7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and have also perused the
impugned judgment. The main plank of argument on behalf of the petitioner
is that it is Narinder Singh, who was his landlord and not the present
respondent. However, I find that the respondent/landlord has examined said
Narinder Singh as PW-2, who in his examination-in-chief, has categorically
stated that he had sold the demised premises to petitioner on 19.7.1995 and
that he had also executed a power of attorney and Will in favour of the
petitioner on 12.9.2008. During the course of cross-examination he has,
however, also stated that he did not execute any power of attorney in favour
of Piara Singh in respect of the demised premises. However, he has not
anywhere stated that Piara Singh had forcibly entered into the demised
premises in question or that his possession of the demised premises was
unauthorized. He has not stated a word to suggest that he himself is landlord
of the demised premises.
8. I do find that there is no registered sale-deed indicating sale of the demised
premises but it appears that there was some similar kind of arrangement
between Narinder Singh and Piara Singh (presently respondent) by way of
some power of attorney executed by Narinder Singh in favour of Piara
Singh. Though the power of attorney (Ex.P-3) is dated 9.9.2008 and the Will
(Ex.P-4) is dated 12.9.2008, which is later in point of time viz-a-viz the rent
note dated 2.5.2008, but by way of executing the aforesaid power of attorney
and the Will in favour of the respondent-landlord coupled with deposition of
Narinder Singh in Court, it is very apparent that the respondent/landlord had
been acting as a landlord with the consent of said Narinder Singh and
Narinder Singh had never expressed any objection for the same. The
execution of the Will in his favour also goes a long way to show that there
was no dispute inter-se between the present landlord and Narinder Singh.
Even if there is no formal sale-deed in favour of the present respondentPiara
Singh, still it is well settled that a person can be a landlord even
without having ownership rights. The above-stated facts leave no manner of
doubt that it is Piara Singh and not Narinder Singh, who is the landlord.
9. During the course of arguments, it was also submitted that the present
landlord had filed the ejectment petition in the year 2011 i.e. after about 3
years, when the tenant allegedly stopped paying the rent and which would
indicate that a false case has been brought about by the landlord.
10. Filing of an ejectment petition after about 3 years, when the tenant stopped
paying the rent, cannot ipso facto lead to an inference that a false case has
been brought about by the landlord. I do not find any merit in the aforesaid
submission and the same is hereby repelled.
11. No other point has been raised or urged before this Court. In view of the
aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by
the learned Rent Controller to the effect that the petitioner had rendered
himself liable for ejectment on account of non-payment of rent, and as
affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority and the same are hereby
affirmed. There is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is
hereby dismissed.
29.5.2018 (Gurvinder Singh Gill)
Print Page
premises but it appears that there was some similar kind of arrangement
between Narinder Singh and Piara Singh (presently respondent) by way of
some power of attorney executed by Narinder Singh in favour of Piara
Singh. Though the power of attorney (Ex.P-3) is dated 9.9.2008 and the Will
(Ex.P-4) is dated 12.9.2008, which is later in point of time viz-a-viz the rent
note dated 2.5.2008, but by way of executing the aforesaid power of attorney
and the Will in favour of the respondent-landlord coupled with deposition of
Narinder Singh in Court, it is very apparent that the respondent/landlord had
been acting as a landlord with the consent of said Narinder Singh and
Narinder Singh had never expressed any objection for the same. The
execution of the Will in his favour also goes a long way to show that there
was no dispute inter-se between the present landlord and Narinder Singh.
Even if there is no formal sale-deed in favour of the present respondentPiara
Singh, still it is well settled that a person can be a landlord even
without having ownership rights. The above-stated facts leave no manner of
doubt that it is Piara Singh and not Narinder Singh, who is the landlord.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-3663-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-29.5.2018
Ashok Kumar Vs Piara Singh
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
dated 3.4.2018 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, whereby an
ejectment order passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, has been
upheld.
2. The respondent/landlord had filed an ejectment petition stating therein that
the petitioner had been inducted as a tenant in the demised premises on
2.5.2008 by way of executing a rent-deed, on rent @ ` 4,300/- per month,
but since the tenant had stopped paying rent from June 2008 and had not
paid the same despite repeated requests, therefore, his ejectment was sought
on account of non-payment of rent.
3. The ejectment petition was resisted by the petitioner, wherein a stand was
taken that in fact the respondent is not the landlord of the demised premises
and that the petitioner had taken the demised premises on rent from one
Narinder Singh on 5.3.2008 and that he had been paying rent to the said
Narinder Singh up to 31.1.2011.
4. The parties were put to proof on the following issues:-
1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the
demised premised property? OPP
2. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent? OPP
3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable since there is no
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPR
4. Relief.
5. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned Rent
Controller upon appraisal of the evidence on record held that a relationship
of tenant and landlord does exist amongst the parties and that since the
petitioner, while denying the relationship, had not paid any rent to the
landlord, therefore, the petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent and
consequently ordered his ejectment. Upon an appeal having been filed by the
petitioner, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings, which have
been challenged by way of filing the present revision petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order,
has submitted that the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned
Appellate Authority fell in error in relying upon the rent note dated 2.5.2008,
which was in fact disputed by the petitioner and had not been proved by the
tenant at the appropriate stage and that it was only at the stage of rebuttal
evidence that attesting witness of the same had been examined. The learned
counsel has further submitted that there is no evidence regarding purchase of
the demised premises by the respondent-landlord and that the alleged power
of attorney dated 9.9.2008 (Ex.P-3) had been executed after the alleged rent
note dated 2.5.2008 and in these circumstances, the alleged rent note was
executed at the time when the respondent-landlord had not been duly
authorized to execute the same.
7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and have also perused the
impugned judgment. The main plank of argument on behalf of the petitioner
is that it is Narinder Singh, who was his landlord and not the present
respondent. However, I find that the respondent/landlord has examined said
Narinder Singh as PW-2, who in his examination-in-chief, has categorically
stated that he had sold the demised premises to petitioner on 19.7.1995 and
that he had also executed a power of attorney and Will in favour of the
petitioner on 12.9.2008. During the course of cross-examination he has,
however, also stated that he did not execute any power of attorney in favour
of Piara Singh in respect of the demised premises. However, he has not
anywhere stated that Piara Singh had forcibly entered into the demised
premises in question or that his possession of the demised premises was
unauthorized. He has not stated a word to suggest that he himself is landlord
of the demised premises.
8. I do find that there is no registered sale-deed indicating sale of the demised
premises but it appears that there was some similar kind of arrangement
between Narinder Singh and Piara Singh (presently respondent) by way of
some power of attorney executed by Narinder Singh in favour of Piara
Singh. Though the power of attorney (Ex.P-3) is dated 9.9.2008 and the Will
(Ex.P-4) is dated 12.9.2008, which is later in point of time viz-a-viz the rent
note dated 2.5.2008, but by way of executing the aforesaid power of attorney
and the Will in favour of the respondent-landlord coupled with deposition of
Narinder Singh in Court, it is very apparent that the respondent/landlord had
been acting as a landlord with the consent of said Narinder Singh and
Narinder Singh had never expressed any objection for the same. The
execution of the Will in his favour also goes a long way to show that there
was no dispute inter-se between the present landlord and Narinder Singh.
Even if there is no formal sale-deed in favour of the present respondentPiara
Singh, still it is well settled that a person can be a landlord even
without having ownership rights. The above-stated facts leave no manner of
doubt that it is Piara Singh and not Narinder Singh, who is the landlord.
9. During the course of arguments, it was also submitted that the present
landlord had filed the ejectment petition in the year 2011 i.e. after about 3
years, when the tenant allegedly stopped paying the rent and which would
indicate that a false case has been brought about by the landlord.
10. Filing of an ejectment petition after about 3 years, when the tenant stopped
paying the rent, cannot ipso facto lead to an inference that a false case has
been brought about by the landlord. I do not find any merit in the aforesaid
submission and the same is hereby repelled.
11. No other point has been raised or urged before this Court. In view of the
aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by
the learned Rent Controller to the effect that the petitioner had rendered
himself liable for ejectment on account of non-payment of rent, and as
affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority and the same are hereby
affirmed. There is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is
hereby dismissed.
29.5.2018 (Gurvinder Singh Gill)
No comments:
Post a Comment