Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 27 (PNJ)

Barsati Ram v. Ramjit Dass

2000-01-11

V.S.AGGARWAL

body2000
Judgment V.S.Agarwal, J. 1. By this common judgment both the revision petitions namely Civil Revision No. 7012 and 1713 of 1999 can conveniently be disposed of together. Both the revision petitions are inter se between the same parties involving the same premises. Thus, they are being taken up together. 2. The relevant facts are that respondent Ramji Das had filed the petition for eviction against the petitioner with respect to the property in dispute. It was asserted that Smt. Kailash Wati widow of Ujjagar Singh was the owner of the house. She has let out the premises to the petitioner. Kailash Wati executed a registered Will in favour of the respondent on 13.4.1981 and thereupon the respondent became the owner-landlord of the property. The petitioner was asserted to have not paid the arrears of rent from 1.7.1971 at the rate of Rs. 150/- P.M. Plea was raised that petitioner had been let out the property for residential purpose but he has changed the user of the premises and started doing the business of cloth. Lastly, it was asserted that the suit property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Reply had been filed. The petitioner contested the petitions for eviction. It was alleged that respondent is not the landlord of the property. The Will set up by the respondent was described to be forged. Plea was raised that Kailash Wati never married to the respondent. She was the widow of Ujjagar Singh. During her life time she never re-married. Being the widow she was exempted from payment of house tax. It was further asserted that the plea of the respondent that they were married at Haridwar is not correct. As per the petitioner, Kailash Wati was 65 years old while the respondent is 35 years old and question of their marrying did not arise. The rent was described to be Rs. 30/- P.M. 3. The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and recorded the evidence. It was held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Since the rent had not been tendered, the order of eviction as such had been passed. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority also concluded that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Since the rent had not been tendered, the order of eviction as such had been passed. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority also concluded that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Reliance was placed on the fact that in the Hospital record when Kailash Wati died, the respondent was described to be her husband and even in the municipal record specifically he has been shown to be as such. The appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed. 4. It is apparent from the facts enumerated above that it is admitted that Kailash Wati was the earlier landlord of the premises in question. The respondent claimed that she had executed a Will in his favour and thus after the death of Kailash Wati he had become the landlord of the suit premises. 5. To establish that the petitioner is the tenant of the respondent, reliance was placed on a rent note, purported to have been executed by the petitioner. Both the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority has not acted on the said rent note. They rightly ignore the same. Reasons are obvious. In the petition, there is no reliance placed on the fact that the petitioner had ever executed a rent note in favour of the respondent. It is true that the Rent Controller strictly speaking is not a civil court. But it has to be remembered that Court of the Rent Controller has all the trapping of the civil court. Strict rules of pleadings may not be made applicable but still it cannot be given a total go bye. A person is expected to plead the relevant facts. When a fact about the existence of the rent note had not at all been pleaded, no reliance on this document could be placed. 6. On behalf of the respondent, it was urged that in any case since there is concurrent finding of fact that Kailash Wati was married to respondent Ramji Dass, the proposition of law is not to be disputed. 6. On behalf of the respondent, it was urged that in any case since there is concurrent finding of fact that Kailash Wati was married to respondent Ramji Dass, the proposition of law is not to be disputed. It is well settled that under sub section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short `the Act), this Court would only interfere if there is illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller. If the findings are absurd, contrary to record or there is misreading of evidence, only then this Court would interfere. With this backdrop one can conveniently revert back to the facts of the case. 7. The respondent had set up a Will Ex. A.3 purported to have been executed by the deceased in favour of the respondent. The learned Rent Controller had found that execution of the Will has not been proved and it is suspicious. The said findings in this regard cannot be ignored. This is for the reason that the respondent had examined Phuman Singh AW.4 who stated that he had typed the draft of the Will. But the Will had not been typed at the instance of Kailash Wati. Not only that the handwriting Expert Shri P.L. Ahuja had also opined that the signature of Kailash Wati on the Will are forged. It is true that it is an opinion only. When it is read with other circumstances on the record, there is no option but to conclude and approve the findings that execution of the Will is not proved. 8. The learned Rent Controller even had examined the signatures on the Will and opined that they do not appear to be of Kailash Wati. One Shri Manmohan Singh, Advocate played an important role in this regard. The names of the attesting witness were not typed on the Will when the Will was prepared. It was left guessing to be filled up lateron. Therefore, it was rightly concluded that valid execution of the Will had not been proved. In fact during the course of arguments, there was not much argument addressed on behalf of the respondent to urge that execution of the Will was proved. 9. However, the respondents learned counsel urged that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the title of the respondent. The argument is totally misconceived. In fact during the course of arguments, there was not much argument addressed on behalf of the respondent to urge that execution of the Will was proved. 9. However, the respondents learned counsel urged that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the title of the respondent. The argument is totally misconceived. The rule of estoppel enshrined under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, stops the tenant from denying the title of the landlord at the time of commencement of the tenancy. It does not debar the tenant from challenging the title of a person who sets up the same on basis of a Will which is not proved. Otherwise any third person can set up his own independent title leaving title right for the tenant. Reference with advantage can well be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Chandra v. Mohammad Sharif and Others, 1990(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 645 : 1990(1) R.R.R. 518 : 1991 Civil Court Cases 5. Almost an identical argument was advanced before the Apex Court. It was held that a tenant is not estopped from contending that vendee from original landlord has a defective title. On parity of reasoning it must, therefore, be held that there is no estoppel on the petitioner from contending that there is no valid Will executed in favour of the respondent. 10. It was for the respondent to establish that he married Kailash Wati at Haridwar. There is no document or any other evidence forthcoming pertaining to the marriage of Kailash Wati with respondent at Haridwar. The person who solemnised the marriage has not been produced. There is only a bald statement of the respondent. Even there is no other evidence so as to prompt this Court to hold that after that they lived or could have lived as husband and wife. No ration card or voters list has been produced in which she described herself as wife of the respondent. The bald statement of the respondent who had otherwise chosen to produce documents which are not genuine, therefore, unnecessarily has to be ignored. 11. Reliance on behalf of the respondent which found favour with the authorities below has been placed on municipal record and a death certificate that Kailash Wati was recorded as wife of the respondent. The said document came into being after Kailash Wati had died. 11. Reliance on behalf of the respondent which found favour with the authorities below has been placed on municipal record and a death certificate that Kailash Wati was recorded as wife of the respondent. The said document came into being after Kailash Wati had died. The person who could deny that she is not the wife of the respondent is not in the world. Therefore, any entry made in the absence of Kailash Wati by the respondent describing himself as her husband, necessarily must be ignored. It is no consequences. In that view of the matter, it must follow that the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, necessarily went astray and committed a legal impropriety in holding that since respondent was the husband of Kailash Wati by operation of law, he would become the landlord after the death of Kailash Wati. This prompts this Court to interfere under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act. 12. As an off shoot of these reasons, the revision petitions are allowed and instead the eviction petitions are dismissed. Eviction petitions are dismissed.