Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 111 (PNJ)

Kaushalya Devi v. Chaman Lal Puri

2003-01-22

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2003
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. Smt. Kaushalya Devi, landlady, has filed the present petition against the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below. 2. The petitioner has sought the ejectment of the respondents from the demised premises on the ground of subletting and also that Chaman Lal, respondent No. 1, had constructed a separate independent house and thus, he ceased to be a tenant of the demised premises. The Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether respondent No. 1 has ceased to occupy the house in dispute as alleged ? 2. Whether respondent No. 1 has sublet or transferred the tenancy premises to respondents No. 2 and 3, as alleged ? 3. Whether respondent No. 1 has purchased his own house as alleged, if so, its effect ? 4. Whether the petition is false and frivolous, as alleged ? 5. Relief. Both the parties led their respective evidence. On considering the evidence brought on record, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner. It was held by the learned Rent Controller that if respondent No. 1 had constructed a house for his own use and shifted thereto due to insufficiency of accommodation in the house in dispute, it did not mean that the respondent had ceased to occupy the house in question. It was observed that the house in dispute was still being occupied by the other family members, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and respondent No. 1 was a member of the joint Hindu family. On issue No. 2 it was held that the petitioner had failed to prove subletting by respondent No. 1 in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and they are living in the demised premises in their own right and not as sub-tenants of respondent No. 1. Thus, issue No. 2 was also decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. Issue No. 3 was decided against the petitioner as the construction of a house by respondent No. 1 did not have any bearing on the merits of the present case. As no evidence was led by the respondents, issue No. 4 was decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. Ultimately, the ejectment petition was dismissed with costs. The appeal filed by Smt. Kaushalya Devi was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority. As no evidence was led by the respondents, issue No. 4 was decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. Ultimately, the ejectment petition was dismissed with costs. The appeal filed by Smt. Kaushalya Devi was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority. Now Smt. Kaushalya Devi has filed the present petition against the orders passed by the Courts below. 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. However, with the assistance rendered by the learned counsel appearing to the petitioner, I have gone through the evidence brought on the record. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been proved on record that respondent No. 1 has constructed his own separate house and has shifted to that house. Thus, he has ceased to be in occupation of the demised premises and the occupation of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is an illegal occupation, as they are sub-tenants of respondent No. 1 without the written consent of the landlord. In support of her contention, she has placed reliance M/s. Girdhari Lal and Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur and others, 1986(2) RCR(Rent) 361 (SC) : AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1499; and M/s Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1998(1) RCR(Rent) 272 (SC) : JT 1998(1) SC 753. 5. There is no dispute with the law laid down by the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the facts of the present case are quite different from the facts appearing in the authorities cited by the learned counsel. In the present case the undisputed facts are that all the three respondents are real brothers. The house in dispute was taken on rent by Girdhari Lal, father of the respondents, in the year 1952 from Mr. Paras Dass Jain. He started living in that house along with his wife, sons (present respondents) and daughters. After the death of Girdhari Lal, his wife, sons and daughters, being his legal heirs, continued to occupy the said house as tenants without any objection from the side of the original landlord. It has come on record that Smt. Kaushalaya Devi petitioner purchased the demised premises from Mr. Paras Dass Jain, the original landlord of the respondents. After the death of Girdhari Lal, his wife, sons and daughters, being his legal heirs, continued to occupy the said house as tenants without any objection from the side of the original landlord. It has come on record that Smt. Kaushalaya Devi petitioner purchased the demised premises from Mr. Paras Dass Jain, the original landlord of the respondents. She filed a rent petition in the Court of Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt., for the increase of the rent and the rent was increased from Rs. 30/- per month to Rs. 45/- per month by a mutual agreement. At that time also respondent No. 1 was not living in that house, whereas respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were in occupation of the demised premises along with their family members. The electricity meter in the demised premises is in the name of Smt. Kanta Rani wife of Ashok Puri, who is a younger brother of respondent No. 1. The said application was submitted by Smt. Kanta Rani on May 17, 1975 with the endorsement of no objection from Smt. Kaushalya Devi to the grant of the electricity connection in the demised premises. It has also been proved on record by cogent evidence that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had studied in B.D. High School, Ambala Cantt. At that time they were residing in the demised premises. As already mentioned above, the demised premises were got on rent by Girdhari Lal, father of the respondents. If after his death, respondent No. 1 had started living separately from other family members, it does not mean that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had become his sub-tenants. They are living in the demised premises in their own right, being the legal heirs of Girdhari Lal. After his death they had become the de facto tenants of the demised premises with the consent of the landlord as no objection had ever been raised by the original landlord with regard to their occupation of the house in dispute and he continued to accept the rent from them. At the time of the purchase of the said house by Smt. Kaushalya Devi, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were every much in occupation of the said premises. She even filed a petition for enhancement of the rent. The rent was enhanced by the Rent Controller by mutual agreement of the parties. At the time of the purchase of the said house by Smt. Kaushalya Devi, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were every much in occupation of the said premises. She even filed a petition for enhancement of the rent. The rent was enhanced by the Rent Controller by mutual agreement of the parties. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the sub-tenants of respondent No. 1. Still further, if due to the paucity of accommodation, respondent No. 1 had started living in a separate house, it does not mean that he has left his lien from the demised premises. The legal possession still remained with him. 6. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.