Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 862 (PNJ)

Pt. Hans Raj v. Shehdev Singh

2001-08-16

R.L.ANAND

body2001
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. This is a tenants revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 29.4.1982 passed by the appellate authority, Kapurthala, who dismissed the appeal of the tenant by affirming the order dated 22.12.1979 passed by the Rent Controller who had allowed the petition of the landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Shehdev Singh filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Rent Restriction Act against Pt. Hans Raj, Shri Shiv Charan Singh and Shri Manohar Lal, seeking their ejectment from a set of three shops situated in Sabzi Mandi, Kapurthala and the case set up by the petitioner in the Court of Rent Controller was that Shri Hans Raj had taken three shops in dispute from him at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- per month and he is liable to ejectment on the ground that he had sublet the premises to respondents No. 2 and 3 without the consent of the landlord. Furthermore respondent No. 1 Pt. Hans Raj is in arrears of rent since 1.2.1974. He was materially impaired the value and utility of the premises by making unauthorised construction and by putting them to improper use. It was also pleaded by the landlord that respondent is using the shops for the purpose other than for which these were let out. 3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. The respondents took the stand that it is Atamdev Singh who is the landlord in respect of the shop in dispute and not Shri Shehdev Singh. On merits it is the stand of respondent No. 1 that since he is a tenant in these shops under Atamdev Singh for the last many years, therefore, Shri Shehdev Singh was not his landlord and thus, there does not exist relationship of landlord and tenant. Respondent No. 1 also denied the other allegations in toto and from the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? OPA 2. If the above issue is proved, whether the respondent is in arrears of rent ? OPA 3. Whether the respondent has sublet the premises to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 without written permission of the applicant ? OPA 4. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? OPA 2. If the above issue is proved, whether the respondent is in arrears of rent ? OPA 3. Whether the respondent has sublet the premises to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 without written permission of the applicant ? OPA 4. Whether respondent No. 1 has committed such acts whereby the value and utility of the premises has been materially diminished ? OPA 5. Whether the respondent No. 1 has put the premises to different use than for which it was let out ? OPA 6. Relief. 4. Parties led oral and the documentary evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 22.12.1979 allowed the ejectment application by holding that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Since respondent No. 1 has not paid the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 22/- per month, therefore, he is liable to be evicted. The tenant was not satisfied with the order of ejectment. He filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 15 of the said Act and his appeal was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 29.4.1982. 5. Not satisfied with the orders of the Courts below the present revision has been filed by the tenant. 6. I have heard Shri Hemant Sarin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the record of this case. Nobody has appeared from the side of the respondents. 7. It may also be mentioned here that during the pendency of this revision, Shri Shehdev Singh, respondent No. 1 died and Atamdev Singh, Manorma, Kusum and Rewa were brought as legal representative vide my order dated 13.1.2000. Notice was also sent to the L.Rs. so much so publication was also done in the Newspaper. In spite of the publication nobody has appeared from the side of the L.Rs. of Shri Shehdev Singh. 8. Shri Hemant Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is proved on the record that his client was the tenant of Shri Atamdev Singh and in these circumstances, his father Shri Shehdev Singh had no locus standi to file the ejectment application. of Shri Shehdev Singh. 8. Shri Hemant Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is proved on the record that his client was the tenant of Shri Atamdev Singh and in these circumstances, his father Shri Shehdev Singh had no locus standi to file the ejectment application. He further stated that the petitioner has documentary evidence to show that Shri Atamdev Singh had been issuing the receipts of rent and this aspect of the case has even been admitted by the witness of the landlord. The counsel invited my attention to the statement of Shri Gian Chand AW1 who deposed in the examination-in-chief as follows :- "I know Shehdev Singh applicant. I worked as his Karinda up to 1975. I know respondent Hans Raj. I have also seen the shops in dispute. The respondent is occupying the shop as a tenant of Shehdev Singh at a rate of Rs. 22/- per month. I have been realising the rent from Hans Raj as Karinda of the applicant. Applicant is on litigation with his son Atamdev Singh. This son was earlier the Mukhtiar of the applicant in the Court-cases." 9. In the cross-examination Shri Gian Singh states that he had been realising the rent from Hans Raj. The witness volunteered that he had been paying it to Atamdev Singh under the instructions of the appellant. The instructions were oral. Thus, if the examination-in-chief quoted above and the above lines in the cross-examination are read together, there is no difficulty in holding that petitioner Shri Hans Raj was inducted as a tenant by Shri Shehdev Singh and if on the instructions of Shri Shehdev Singh the Karinda had been paying the rent to Shri Atamdev Singh, it does not mean that the relationship of landlord and tenant has been created between Shri Atamdev Singh and Shri Hans Raj. Further scrutiny of the statement of Shri Gian Singh would show that there was a litigation between the father and son. On the instructions of the father some rent was being paid to Shri Atamdev by this witness but there is no evidence at all to suggest that Shri Hans Raj was inducted as a tenant by Shri Atamdev Singh or that the possession was handed over to him by Shri Atamdev Singh. On the instructions of the father some rent was being paid to Shri Atamdev by this witness but there is no evidence at all to suggest that Shri Hans Raj was inducted as a tenant by Shri Atamdev Singh or that the possession was handed over to him by Shri Atamdev Singh. Rather a suggestion was put to the witness as follows :- "It is incorrect to suggest that Hans Raj is tenant under Atamdev Singh and I have made a false statement." 10. Shri Harbans Singh AW2 also deposed that he is the general attorney of the petitioner-landlord and Hans Raj is the tenant. The landlord had cancelled the power of attorney given by him earlier to his son Atamdev Singh. In this view of the matter, there is no difficulty on the part of this Court to hold about the actual relationship of landlord and tenant. Had there been any truth in the assertion of the petitioner that Shri Atamdev Singh was his landlord, there was no difficulty on his part to put Shri Atamdev Singh into the witness box. The best witness was Atamdev Singh who could support the case of the petitioner. 11. With regard to the counterfoils Exs. A.5 to A.9, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord is a liar. He claimed the rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month but in fact it is established on the record that the rate of rent was Rs. 22/- per month and in these circumstances, ejectment petition cannot be allowed. In support of his contention the counsel for the petitioner relies upon 1982(2) RCR(Rent) 15 (P&H) : AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 144, Mehar Chand and another v. Tilak Raj Girdhar and 1997(2) RCR(Rent) 200 (P&H) : 1997(2) RLR 95, Harnam Singh v. Mohinder Singh. The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not helpful to him. Even at the established rate of rent of Rs. 22/- per month, the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the rent. He took the false plea about the relationship of landlord and tenant. Moment it is established that Shri Shehdev Singh was the landlord and the petitioner was the tenant, it is the duty of the tenant to tender the rent. The written reply of the tenant is even vague and evasive. He took the false plea about the relationship of landlord and tenant. Moment it is established that Shri Shehdev Singh was the landlord and the petitioner was the tenant, it is the duty of the tenant to tender the rent. The written reply of the tenant is even vague and evasive. Ex.PA is the certified copy of the assessment register maintained by the local municipality in which the petitioner is described as tenant at the rate of Rs. 22/- per month. It was then submitted that from the receipts Exs. R.1 to R.13, it is established that Shri Atamdev Singh is the landlord. These receipts were rejected by the landlord on the ground that these have been subsequently forged and fabricated in connivance with Shri Atamdev Singh. Atamdev Singh has not come in the witness box. These receipts were never pleaded in the written reply. It is proved on the record that relations between Atamdev Singh and his father Shehdev Singh were not cordial. If the petitioner in collusion with Shri Atamdev Singh had obtained certain receipts, these are not binding upon the landlord. Even in those receipts it is not stated by Shri Atamdev Singh that he is the owner of the property. 12. In the light of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that Shri Hans Raj was a tenant of Shri Shehdev Singh deceased. He did not pay or tender the arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, ejectment order was rightly passed by the learned Rent Controller affirmed by the appellate authority. The revision is hereby dismissed and two months time is granted to the petitioner-tenant to vacate the demised premises failing which it will be open to the L.Rs. of Shri Shehdev Singh to get the possession of the property through the Court of law.