Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1145 (PNJ)

Rattan Lal v. Prem Sagar Alias Prem Chand

2001-10-16

R.L.ANAND

body2001
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. This is a landlords revision petition and has been directed against the judgment dated 19th September, 1981 passed by the Court of Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, who allowed the appeal of Shri Prem Sagar by reversing the finding of the learned Rent Controller on two issues and dismissed and ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). 2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Sohan Lal is the father of Shri Rattan Lal. They were applicants before the Rent Controller. They jointly filed an ejectment application against Shri Prem Sagar seeking ejectment from the demised premises which is H.H. No. 224 situated in Ward No. 10, Mata Rani Mohalla, Khanna. It was alleged that applicant No. 1 Shri Rattan Lal is the owner of the house in dispute and this house was taken on rent by Shri Prem Sagar from applicant No. 2 Shri Sohan Lal who is the father of applicant No. 1 at the monthly rent of Rs. 150/- in February 1968. At that time applicant No. 1 Shri Rattan Lal was a minor. Now he has become major. Therefore, he is entitled to recover the rent from respondent Shri Prem Sagar. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground that the tenant has not paid the house tax; the house in question is required by applicant No. 1 Rattan Lal for his personal use and occupation and he wants to shift to Khanna to do his business. It was also alleged that applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2 are not occupying any residential building nor they have vacated any such building within the Municipal Limits of Khanna after coming into force the said Act. 3. Notice of the ejectment application was given to the tenant. According to the respondent, the house in question was purchased by Shri Brij Lal in the year 1965 in the name of applicant No. 1 Shri Rattan Lal. Brij Lal is the maternal grand-father of applicant No. 1. He is the real owner of the house in dispute and he rented out the premises in dispute to respondent Shri Prem Sagar and he rented the house in dispute to one Shri Sham Lal. Brij Lal is the maternal grand-father of applicant No. 1. He is the real owner of the house in dispute and he rented out the premises in dispute to respondent Shri Prem Sagar and he rented the house in dispute to one Shri Sham Lal. Sham Lal vacated the same and then it was rented out to the present respondent Shri Prem Sagar who is none else but the nephew of Shri Brij Lal. It was rented with the stipulation that the respondent would effect the repairs and the rate of rent agreed upon was Rs. 35.00 per month. Respondent invested Rs. 5000/- for the repairs of the house. He had been paying rent regularly to Brij Lal upto 31st October, 1977. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is also alleged that the petitioner No. 1 is living at Ludhiana with his parents and is employed in a private firm. It was also pleaded by the respondent that the lease deed in favour of applicant No. 1 Shri Rattan Lal is benami because he was a minor in the year 1975. The rate of rent was not Rs. 150/- per month, rather the rate of rent was Rs. 35/- per month and the premises in question was taken on rent from Shri Brij Lal. No house-tax was payable by the respondent. By denying other allegations, the respondent Prem Sagar prayed for dismissal of the ejectment application. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court/Rent Controller framed the following issues : 1. Whether the tender of the arrears of rent made by the respondent is invalid ? OPR 2. Whether the petitioner requires the premises in dispute bona fide for their personal use and occupation ? OPP 3. Whether the petitioners are not owners/landlord of the premises in dispute qua the respondent ? OPR 4. Relief. 5. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Rent Controller held that the tender made by the respondent is invalid and that the premises in question are required by the petitioners for their personal necessity. It was also held that petitioners are the landlord vis-a-vis the tenant. It was also held that petitioners are the landlord vis-a-vis the tenant. Resultantly the ejectment application was allowed and tenant was directed to deliver the possession of the demises premises within sixty days from the date of filing of the ejectment application. 6. Prem Sagar tenant filed the appeal before the Appellate Court, Ludhiana who vide impugned judgment allowed the appeal of the tenant and dismissed the ejectment application. Against this judgment, the landlord has come in the present revision. 7. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of this appeal Shri Prem Sagar tenant has expired. In spite of the best efforts made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the legal representatives of Shri Prem Sagar have not been brought on record. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance, have gone through the record of the trial Court. Though an effort was made to convince me that the judgment of the Rent Controller is sound as compared to the judgment of the Appellate Court, yet I am of the opinion that this revision is totally without any merit and deserves to be dismissed and there is no scope for interference in the judgment of the Appellate Authority. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued this revision from two angles, firstly that it is established on the record that there was a genuine need of the demised premises of Shri Rattan Lal who wants to shift from Ludhiana to Khanna, but I am not convinced with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is the admitted case of the petitioners that Shri Rattan Lal, applicant No. 1 is employed and residing at Ludhiana and he is engaged in the cycle business. 10. The case set up the petitioners is that Shri Rattan Lal wanted to shift to Khanna. It has also come in the evidence that Rattan Lal who is son of Shri Sohan Lal are the permanent residents of Ludhiana for the last 40 years. Now the question is as to whether the so-called need of Shri Rattan Lal that he wanted to shift from Ludhiana to Khanna is genuine/bona fide or it is only mala fide affairs. Now the question is as to whether the so-called need of Shri Rattan Lal that he wanted to shift from Ludhiana to Khanna is genuine/bona fide or it is only mala fide affairs. The proposition of law is well settled that the Rent Controller, Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority will not sit over the decision of the landlord when he is seeking an ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity but at the same time, mere wish of the landlord and mere ipse dixit of the landlord cannot be accepted to reach the conclusion that he needed the premises for his own occupation. We all know that the Ludhiana is one of the biggest towns. The cycle business in Ludhiana is more flourishable than any other place in the State. Khanna is at a distance of 35 KM from Ludhiana. The scope of cycle business in Ludhiana is far more than the scope at Khanna which is only an agricultural Mandi. It has also come in evidence Shri Rattan Lal at the time of the filing of the ejectment application was employed in Messrs Delhi Cycle House at Ludhiana. For what reason he wants to shift to Khanna in order to do the Cycle business where there is no scope for flourishment etc. Evidence has also come on record that Shri Rattan Lal has no financial resources so as to start any business much less of the cycle trade at Khanna. From all these circumstances it is a mere wish of Shri Rattan Lal and his father Shri Sohan Lal that they are interested to start business of cycles at Khanna. Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the evidence led by the landlord smacks of mala fides and the bona fide need is not proved as rightly observed by the first appellate authority. 11. Reverting to the fact as to whether the premises in question was let out by Shri Sohan Lal, father of Shri Rattan Lal, to the tenant at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. There is no rent note in this case. In these circumstances, we have to depend upon the oral evidence. On the contrary, the stand of the tenant is that the premises was let out to him by Sri Brij Lal who is maternal grand father of Shri Rattan Lal. 150/- per month. There is no rent note in this case. In these circumstances, we have to depend upon the oral evidence. On the contrary, the stand of the tenant is that the premises was let out to him by Sri Brij Lal who is maternal grand father of Shri Rattan Lal. Brij Lal has daughter by the name of Smt. Kala Wati who was married with Sohan Lal and out of the union of Sohan Lal and Kala Wati, petitioner No. 1 Shri Rattan Lal was born. The stand of the tenant further is that the property was purchased by Shri Brij Lal in the benami name of his Dota (grandson) namely Rattan Lal. In this background we have to examine the oral evidence. It has come in evidence of the trial Court that the house in question was purchased in the year 1965. At that time Shri Rattan Lal was just a boy of ten years. There appears to be truth in the contention of the tenant that, in fact, the house was purchased by Shri Brij Lal and the registry was benami in the name of Shri Rattan Lal, but the house was purchased by Shri Sohan Lal. There was no difficulty on his part to get the sale deed executed in his own name. Rather there are more probabilities that Shri Brij Lal purchased the property because of the fact that Shri Rattan Lal was none else but his grandson. Therefore, he could have purchased this property in the name of Shri Rattan Lal. For our purposes, we have to see who actually let out the property to Shri Prem Sagar whether it was let out by Shri Sohan Lal or by Shri Brij Lal. Once it is held that the property was purchased by Shri Brij Lal then in all probabilities and preponderance the stand of the tenant appears to be correct that the property was let out to him by Shri Brij Lal at a monthly rent of Rs. 35/- because this contention of the tenant is supported by a documentary evidence which I will discuss just now in this judgment. 12. There is no evidence on record that Shri Sohan Lal purchased this property from his personal resources. Exhibit R.W./1 is the receipt of payment of rent. It is issued under the signature of Shri Brij Lal. 35/- because this contention of the tenant is supported by a documentary evidence which I will discuss just now in this judgment. 12. There is no evidence on record that Shri Sohan Lal purchased this property from his personal resources. Exhibit R.W./1 is the receipt of payment of rent. It is issued under the signature of Shri Brij Lal. The contents of the receipt runs as follows : "Kiraaya Makan Banam Rattan Lal Dar 420 rupees Saal 31 October 1977 Tak Vasool Paya Prem Sagar Se" (signed Brij Lal) landa character. 13. Shri Brij Lal is the real maternal grand father. Therefore, his statement has to be believed. His statement was recorded on commission. He has categorically stated that the house in question was let out to Shri Prem Sagar by him at the monthly rent of Rs. 35/- and he has received the rent up to October, 1977 by issuing the receipt Exhibit R.W./1. In view of this statement, the stand of the landlord is falsified that the rental was Rs. 150/- per month. Faced with this difficulty, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the receipt Exhibit RW/1 does not bear any date and that in the assessment register of the Municipal Committee, the rental has been shown at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month. Both the submissions cannot be lost sight of. Shri Brij Lal has admitted that he has issued this receipt. A perusal of the above receipt would show that firstly the rental has been paid up to October, 1997. Also it is established that this house is in the name of Shri Rattan Lal petitioner No. 1 and the tenant is Shri Prem Sagar. The assessment of Rs. 45/- is the opinion evidence of the official of the Municipal Committee, Khanna and this is not the actual depiction of the agreed rent between the landlord and the tenant. Faced with this difficulty, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the tenant has not produced the other remaining receipts. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted because Shri Prem Sagar tenant was equally related with Shri Brij Lal. What it appears to be that Shri Rattan Lal was a minor. The property was purchased by Shri Brij Lal in the name of his grand-son. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted because Shri Prem Sagar tenant was equally related with Shri Brij Lal. What it appears to be that Shri Rattan Lal was a minor. The property was purchased by Shri Brij Lal in the name of his grand-son. Since Shri Rattan Lal was a minor and his father was residing at Ludhiana, he inducted Shri Prem Sagar as the tenant with a stipulation that tenant shall make the repairs. From all this it is established that the rental was Rs. 35/- per month. From 1st November, 1977 the tender has been made in the trial Court on the first date of hearing along with costs and interest. There is no doubt to that effect. Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the tender made by the tenant was not short and, therefore, I again affirm the finding of the first appellate authority. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, relied upon Shri Guru Dutt Sharma v. Shri Dharam Paul Mohindru, 1980(2) P.L.R. 205, Jetha Nand v. Ram Chander and another, 1966(LXVIII) P.L.R. 377, Smt. Chandra Wati v. Narain Dass, 1970(LXXII) P.L.R. 299 and it was submitted that even Shri Brij Lal R.W.1 has admitted that the petitioners required the premises for their personal necessity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted firstly I cannot lose sight of the fact that Shri Brij Lal is none else but the real maternal grandfather of Shri Rattan Lal. Secondly the factum question is a question of fact depending upon the facts of each and each case. The case set up by the learned Counsel for the petitioners was that Shri Rattan Lal required the demised premises for his personal necessity as he wanted to shift from Ludhiana to Khanna in order to start a cycle business. As stated above, there is no scope for cycle business at Khanna as compared to Ludhiana where premier industries of bicycle and cycle parts are located and situated. This aspect of the case has already been examined mutually by the first appellate authority who has rightly come to the conclusion that the so called need of the landlord is a mala fide affair and not genuine. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot come to his rescue. 15. This aspect of the case has already been examined mutually by the first appellate authority who has rightly come to the conclusion that the so called need of the landlord is a mala fide affair and not genuine. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot come to his rescue. 15. Resultantly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.