Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 67 (PNJ)

Harbans Lal And Ors. v. Kishan Chand

2000-01-18

V.S.AGGARWAL

body2000
Judgment V.S.Aggarwal, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the legal representative of Puran Chand petitioner directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Bathinda dated 3.8.1998. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and instead an order of eviction was passed against the petitioners. 2. The relevant facts are that Kishan Chand respondent had filed a petition for eviction against Puran Chand predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners with respect to the suit premises. It has been averred that respondent is the owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 27.8.1968. Puran Chand had taken the suit property on rent from the respondent vide rent note dated 1.9.1969 at a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. He is in arrears of rent from 1.9.1974. Furthermore, it was alleged that property in question is in a dilapidated condition. It has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The roof of the property even has been changed i.e. of room No. 3. In the reply filed, the petition had been contested. It was denied that there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further asserted that question of title is involved and, therefore, only civil Court can adjudicate the dispute between the parties about title of the parties. The rent note set up by the respondent was stated to be in-admissible in evidence because it was not registered. In fact Puran Chand claimed that he himself is the owner of the suit property. He had not executed any rent note in favour of the respondent. The sale deed was described to be a forged document. It was pleaded further that from 1968 to 1972 relations of Puran Chand with his children were not cordial. He suffered from frustration and mental disorder. The respondent was on friendly terms with him. He might have obtained his signatures by mis-representation. It has been asserted that he has been in continuous possession without payment of rent. 3. The learned rent Controller framed the issues and held that the rent note could not be read in evidence. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and accordingly the petition for eviction was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the respondent. 3. The learned rent Controller framed the issues and held that the rent note could not be read in evidence. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and accordingly the petition for eviction was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the respondent. The learned Appellate Authority held that no fraud had been practiced. The Controller was competent to go into the question of title and about relationship of landlord and tenant. It was further held that in fact there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The rent had not been tendered on the first date of hearing. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed and the order passed by the learned Rent Controller was set aside. Aggrieved by the same the present revision petition has been preferred. 4. At the time when the matter was fixed for arguments, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. In these circumstances, the Court did not have the advantage of hearing the petitioners learned counsel. 5. Alongwith the revision petition an application under Order 22, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure had been filed. In the absence of any objection, it is allowed. The legal representative as mentioned above are arrayed as parties instead of Puran Chand. 6. The first and foremost question that comes up for consideration is as to if there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or not? The respondent has set up the claim on basis of the sale deed Ex.A-2 dated 27.8.1968. Puran Chand had denied the execution of the same. His defence was that from 1968 to 1972 his relations with his children were strained. He was frustrated and suffering from mental disorder. The respondent had become friendly with him and might have obtained his signatures by misrepresentation and fraud. 7. This defence by itself shows that impliedly the signatures on the sale deed is not being denied. Otherwise also the same had been proved. At the later stage denying the signatures by Puran Chand on the sale deed would be of little consequence. Though plea had been taken that fraud was practiced but since 1968 Puran Chand took no steps to challenge the sale deed. This only leaves one to conclude that he admits the execution of the sale deed. At the later stage denying the signatures by Puran Chand on the sale deed would be of little consequence. Though plea had been taken that fraud was practiced but since 1968 Puran Chand took no steps to challenge the sale deed. This only leaves one to conclude that he admits the execution of the sale deed. There is no other material to indicate any such fraud or misrepresentation. It is held, therefore, that respondent was the owner of the property ,on basis of the said sale deed. 8. Even a rent agreement Ex.A-3 had been executed. Pertaining to it an objection had been raised that is an unregistered document and, therefore, could not be looked into. It is true that under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, unless it is an oral agreement accompanied with delivery of possession, the lease deed would require registration. But herein the statement of the respondent also cannot be ignored. He states that petitioner had let out the said property at a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. When Puran Chand was in occupation and sold the property, necessarily the respondent must be believed when he states that Puran Chand accepted himself to be the tenant. It must, therefore, follow that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 9. In the grounds of revision, a fact highlighted is that the Rent Controller was not competent to decide the relationship of landlord and tenant. But the said plea is also devoid of any merit. 10. The Rent Controller is a Court of limited jurisdiction. However, when questions about relationship of landlord and tenant arises for adjudication, the law does not bar the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. He can go into the questions in this regard and arrive at a conclusion for disposal of the eviction petition. Same was the view expressed by this court in the case of Dewan Chand v. Sh. Darshan Lal, 1994 Haryana Rent reporter 398. This particular contention must also fail. 11. No rent had been tendered on the first date of hearing. Once that is the position, the order of eviction was rightly passed. There is no ground to interfere. 12. For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit and is dismissed. The petitioners are granted 3 months time to vacate the premises.