Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1192 (PNJ)

Mohar Singh v. Khushbir Singh

2001-10-23

R.L.ANAND

body2001
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. This is a tenants revision and has been directed against the order dated 7th May, 1985 passed by the Appellate Authority vide which the appeal of the landlord was accepted and the order of the Rent Controller was set aside. The learned Appellate Authority, while allowing the ejectment petition of the landlord directed the tenants to put them in vacant possession of the premises in question. In brief facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner : Shri Khushbir Singh son of Harbind Singh filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against Shri Mohar Singh and Bhupinder Singh seeking ejectment of the respondents from the demised premises i.e. shop situated in Kashmiri Bazar, Hoshiarpur, by inter alia alleging that Shri Mohar Singh is a tenant in the shop in dispute at a monthly rental of Rs. 900/- plus house tax and that the respondent has not paid the rent in Court according to his statement dated 19.3.1983 since 7.11.1982 to 7.4.1983. He has also not deposited the house tax for this period. Therefore, the respondents are liable to be ejected from the shop in question on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was also averred by the petitioners that respondents were asked several time to deposit the rent in Court but finally they refused to do so on 10th April, 1983. Hence the ejectment petition. 2. It may be mentioned here that the ejectment application was filed in the Court of Rent Controller on 20th April, 1983 and it was registered as Rent Petition No. 20 of 1983 on 22nd April, 1983. 3. Notice of the ejectment petition was given to the respondent-tenants. A preliminary objection was taken that Smt. Sheela Wanti widow of Shri Pritam Singh was a necessary party to his application as the question of title was involved; that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition; that the petition was un-dated and it is not known from which date the tender was to be made. On merits, the respondents took the stand that they are the tenants under Pritam Singh deceased and until and unless the civil court decides the question of title, they are the tenants of successor- in-interest of Shri Pritam Singh. On merits, the respondents took the stand that they are the tenants under Pritam Singh deceased and until and unless the civil court decides the question of title, they are the tenants of successor- in-interest of Shri Pritam Singh. It was also pleaded by the respondents that they have deposited the rent from 7.11.1982 to 7.1.1983. Resultantly, it was prayed by the tenants that the ejectment petition should be dismissed. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether Smt. Sheela Wanti is a necessary party ? If so, to what effect ? OPR 2. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this petition ? OPR 3. Whether the petition is defective for want of date, from which the tender was to be made and is not properly verified ? OPR 4. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? OPA 5. Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment for default of making a tender of arrears of rent ? OPA 6. Relief. 4. It may also be mentioned here that the first date of hearing in the present ejectment petition was 9th June, 1983 when the tenant made a statement before the learned Rent Controller that he did not want to make any tender because he had already deposited the rent under the orders of the Civil Court and in order to verify his assertions, he placed on record photocopy of the treasury challan. It was also stated by the tenant that on the ejectment petition no date has been mentioned. Resultantly, the proceedings were adjourned to 18th January, 1983. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 18.9.1984 dismissed the ejectment petition. Not satisfied with the order of the learned Rent Controller, the landlord filed an appeal under Section 15 of the said Act before the Appellate Authority and vide impugned judgment dated 7th May, 1985 the learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the landlord and ordered the ejectment of the tenants and in this manner, the present revision by the tenants. 5. I have heard Miss Savina Pannu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the tenants and with her assistance, have gone through the record of this case. No assistance has come from the opposite side. 6. 5. I have heard Miss Savina Pannu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the tenants and with her assistance, have gone through the record of this case. No assistance has come from the opposite side. 6. The sole point for determination in this revision is whether the tenants (petitioners before me) are liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent or not. I have already stated above, when the present ejectment petition was filed by the landlord on 20th April, 1983 and it was registered on 22nd April, 1983, the landlord claimed the rent w.e.f. 7th November, 1982, up to 7th April, 1983, and as per the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act, the rental up to 6th February, 1983, for a period of three months was due to the landlord. Now the question survives for determination is whether the rental for three months along with costs and interest had been paid to the landlord on or before the first date of hearing or not. The record of the trial Court shows that the landlord filed two ejectment applications - the present in hand in which he claimed the rental from 7th November, 1982 to 7th April, 1983 and one more ejectment application in which he claimed rental from 7th January, 1983 onwards. As stated above, on the date of the filing of the ejectment application the rental only for a period of three months up to 6th February, 1983 was due to the landlord. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the Treasury Challan Ex.R-6 which shows that a sum of Rs. 1997.00 was deposited in the Treasury under the orders of the Court. The break-up of this amount is as follows :- Rental = Rs. 1800.00 House-tax = Rs. 134.00 Interest = Rs. 63.00 Total = Rs. 1997.00 7. This amount was deposited in the treasury under the orders of the Court on 8th June, 1983, i.e. one day earlier to the first date of hearing, meaning thereby that the landlord has been paid the arrears of rent for a period of two months up to 8th January, 1983. Now it is to be seen whether the rental for one month from 8th January, 1983 to 8th February, 1983 has been paid by the tenants or not. 8. Now it is to be seen whether the rental for one month from 8th January, 1983 to 8th February, 1983 has been paid by the tenants or not. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further invited my attention to the document Ex.RX, the certified copy of the statement dated 20th August, 1983 in which the tenants tendered the rental amounting to Rs. 5400/- w.e.f. 7th January, 1983 to 7th June, 1983, besides Rs. 405/- as house-tax and Rs. 100/- as costs, in all Rs. 6040/-. From this document, the learned Counsel for the petitioners wanted to take the benefit that the landlord cleverly claimed the rental doubly for the period from 7th January, 1983 to 6th February, 1983 in the second application which was filed on 1st August, 1983. Since the rental for this month has already been paid to the landlord on 20th August, 1983, which was the first date of hearing in the second ejectment application, therefore, the tenants cannot be evicted on the ground of short tender in the first ejectment application. I find merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners as the landlord had tried to mislead the tenants by filing the second ejectment application in which he had claimed rental w.e.f. 7th January, 1983 little realising that he also claimed the rental from 7th January, 1983 upto 7th April, 1983 in the first ejectment application. Since the landlord wanted ejectment of the applicant in the second ejectment application by claiming rent w.e.f. 7th January, 1983 but that payment of his has already been paid by the tenants on the first date of hearing i.e. 20th August, 1983 when the tender has been made. Therefore, the landlord cannot take the benefit of the alleged default by taking the plea that the earlier tender made on 9th June, 1983 did not include the rental for the month of January and February starting from 7th January, 1983 to 6th February, 1983. As the rental from 7th November, 1982 onwards has been paid by the tenants, therefore, the first Appellate Authority has not rightly appreciated the matter. 9. Resultantly, I allow this revision, set aside the judgment of the first Appellate Authority and restore the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, and dismiss the ejectment application with no order as to costs.