Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 139 (PNJ)

Jaspal Singh v. Gurbax Singh

2003-01-24

R.L.ANAND

body2003
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. This is a rent revision filed by the tenant and it has been directed against the order dated 28.5.1998 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Patiala, who allowed the petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short the Act), of Gurbax Singh, who claimed himself to be a specified landlord and the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant who was directed to deliver the vacant possession of the house in dispute to the landlord within three months from the date of the passing of the order. 2. The landlord filed the present revision in the year 1998 against the impugned order of the Rent Controller and it came up for hearing before me on 30.10.2001. It was disposed of with a short order by making a mention that after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any merit in this revision. Six-month time was granted to the tenant to vacate the demised premises. The tenant was not satisfied with the order of the High Court and he went in appeal before the Honble Supreme Court and their Lordships of the Supreme Court vide order dated 23.9.2002 were pleased to set aside the order of the High Court and passed the following order :- "On a petition filed by the respondent under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , the order of the eviction has been passed against the appellants and in favour of the respondent. Section 13-A deals with right to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building to accrue to specified landlord. The expression "specified landlord" has been defined in Section 2(hh) of the aforesaid Act. One of the important questions to be considered is whether the respondent comes within the definition of specified landlord and would be entitled to file a petition under Section 13-A of the Act. In the present case, the question is whether an employee of a private aided school would come within the said definition or not. The High Court when approached by the appellants-tenants rejected the revision petition by merely observing that there is not merit in the revision petition. The aforesaid point, in particular, required deeper consideration by the High Court. In the present case, the question is whether an employee of a private aided school would come within the said definition or not. The High Court when approached by the appellants-tenants rejected the revision petition by merely observing that there is not merit in the revision petition. The aforesaid point, in particular, required deeper consideration by the High Court. We, however, express no opinion on the said point one way or the other, since we are remanding the case to the High Court for fresh decision. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. We would, however, request the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of four months. The parties shall appear before the Registrar of the High Court on 4th October, 2002." 3. In pursuance of the directions of the Honble Supreme Court, the present order vide which the main revision is being disposed of. 4. Petitioner Gurbax Singh sought an ejectment order against Sant Singh, Jaspal Singh and Smt. Narinder Kaur from the residential house bearing Municipal No. 3038/1, situated in Anardana Chowk, Patiala on the plea that Smt. Joginder Kaur wife of respondent No. 1, mother of respondent No. 2 and mother-in-law of respondent No. 3 took on rent the demised premises from the mother of the petitioner Smt. Saraswati Devi on a monthly rental of Rs. 20/- on 17.6.1971. The rent deed to this effect was also executed by Smt. Joginder Kaur in favour of Smt. Saraswati Devi on the same date. Said Saraswati Devi expired on 27.6.1976 and the property has been succeeded by the petitioner. Smt Joginder Kaur also expired leaving behind Sant Singh, her husband, respondent No. 1 Jaspal Singh, son, respondent No. 2 and Manmohan Singh, her second son. Manmohan Singh also expired before filing the present rent petition and he has left behind Smt. Narinder Kaur respondent No. 3 as his widow. Now all the three respondents are in occupation of the house in question. They are in arrears of rent since 1.1.1993, but the petitioner is not claiming the same in the present petition and has reserved his right to claim the arrears separately in accordance with law. 5. Here the case of the petitioner starts for the disposal of the present revision. They are in arrears of rent since 1.1.1993, but the petitioner is not claiming the same in the present petition and has reserved his right to claim the arrears separately in accordance with law. 5. Here the case of the petitioner starts for the disposal of the present revision. The petitioner maintained in the petition under Section 13-A of the Act that he was working as a teacher in Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa Boys Senior Secondary School, Dev Nagar, New Delhi-5 and he had retired as such on 30.4.1996. Said school was recognised and aided by Delhi administration and is governed by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and as such he was a specified landlord. He wanted to settle at Patiala. He does not own or possess any such accommodation in the local area of Patiala and has not vacated any such building. Therefore, directions be given to the respondents to vacate the demised premises. 6. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. They contested the claim of the petitioner and took preliminary stand that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner was not the owner of the property in dispute and it belongs to one Gurbax Singh son of Jai Ram Singh, resident of Sher-e-Punjab Market, Patiala. It was also pleaded by the respondents that the petition was not legally maintainable and was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. False probate has been obtained by the petitioner by concealments of facts from original owner and the respondents. The respondents did not pay rent to the petitioner as there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. However, they were regularly paying the rent to Gurbax Singh son of Jai Ram Singh. On merits, it was the stand of the respondents that Smt. Joginder Kaur never executed any rent note in favour of Smt. Saraswati Devi and the alleged signatures had been obtained by playing fraud at the instance of her neighbours on the pretext that Smt. Saraswati Devi required some signatures to support her in getting old age pension. Smt. Joginder Kaur never accepted Smt. Saraswati Devi as her landlady nor she paid any rent to her. From the very beginning the rent was being paid to Gurbax Singh son of Jai Ram Singh and the alleged rent deed dated 17.6.1971 does not confirm the tenancy. Smt. Joginder Kaur never accepted Smt. Saraswati Devi as her landlady nor she paid any rent to her. From the very beginning the rent was being paid to Gurbax Singh son of Jai Ram Singh and the alleged rent deed dated 17.6.1971 does not confirm the tenancy. The petitioner retired as teacher from a private aided school and he is a permanent resident of Delhi having property there and is well settled. The other averments of the rent petition were denied and it was prayed by the respondents that the rent petition may be dismissed. 7. A rejoinder was filed by the landlord and from the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues on 14.8.1997 :- "1. Whether the petitioner is a specified landlord as alleged ? OPA 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree for ejectment against the respondent on the grounds mentioned in the petition ? OPA 3. Whether there is no relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties as alleged ? OPA 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR 6. Relief." 8. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the petitioner and it was held that he was a specified landlord. Issues No. 2 and 3 were also decided in favour of the petitioner holding that it has been proved by the petitioner that he is a specified landlord and his need was bona fide. The relationship of landlord and tenant existed. Issues No. 4 and 5 were decided against the tenants and finally vide order dated 29.5.1988 the learned Rent Controller, Patiala allowed the rent petition and ordered for the delivery of the possession of the demised premises within three months from the date of the passing of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision which was disposed of at one stage by this Court on 30.10.2001 but that order was set aside by the Honble Supreme Court which gave the directions to this Court to re- determine the issue as to whether the case of the petitioner falls with in the expression "specified landlord" as defined in Section 2(hh) of the Act. It was observed by the Honble Supreme Court whether an employee of a private aided school would come within the said definition or not. 9. It was observed by the Honble Supreme Court whether an employee of a private aided school would come within the said definition or not. 9. In compliance to the directions of the Honble Supreme Court I am disposing of this revision. Before I proceed further into the matter, it would be proper for me to incorporate the findings of the Rent Controller on issue No. 1 which have been contained in paras 8 and 9 of the order and the same are reproduced as follows :- "Issue No. 1 8. To prove that the petitioner is a specified landlord AW8 Gurbax Singh stated that he was born in Pakistan and migrated to India and settled at Patiala. He had done his schooling at Patiala and after completing his B.A. got the job at Delhi from where he had retired. After retirement he wanted to settle at Patiala. AW6, Tarlochan Singh, who knew the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has studied at Patiala, who has since retired from his job at Delhi. So is the statement of AW5 Mohinder Singh, nephew of the petitioner, according to whom the petitioner was working as teacher, who has since retired. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Teacher in Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa Boys Senior Secondary School, New Delhi and has retired on 30.4.1996, vide certificate Ex. A18. The said school of the petitioner is a recognised and aided by Delhi Administration and is governed by Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The said Act was enacted by pronouncement in the 244th amendment of Constitution of India to provide better organisation and development of school education in the Union Territory of Delhi and for matters connected therewith or accidental charges thereof or the Administrator appointed by the President, Govt. Of India under Art. 239 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the Administrator regulates education and service conditions in accordance with rules made thereunder, besides regulating the service condition of the employees of recognised private schools. Of India under Art. 239 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the Administrator regulates education and service conditions in accordance with rules made thereunder, besides regulating the service condition of the employees of recognised private schools. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon 1987(1) RCR(Rent) 385 (P&H) : 1987(1) PLR 414 decision of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case Shri Fateh Chand Verma v. Shri Balbir Singh, wherein the landlord had held the appointment in the New Delhi Municipal Committee, a post connected with the affairs of the State controlled by the Delhi Administration, Delhi headed by Lt. Governor. Landlord was covered by the definition of specified landlord. On the same score the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon 1992(2) RCR(Rent) 514 (P&H) : 1992(2) PLR 676 decision of Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case Girwar Lal v. Khadi Bhandar Dhuri and another, wherein an employee of the nationalised bank was held to be specified landlord. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that private aided school cannot be said to be established under the Education Act. Moreover, the certificate Ex. A18 is only signed by the principal of the school, besides the Chairman, but has not been signed by the management of the committee. Thus, the certificate produced by the petitioner is not a requisite certificate from the concerned authority indicating the date of retirement of the petitioner from the service in view of the provisions of 1990(1) RCR(Rent) 383 (P&H) : 1990 HRR 78, decision of Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case Subedar Tara Singh of Jalandhar v. Smt. Bachan Kaur & Ors. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent does not seem to be plausible as is proved, wherefrom the petitioner has retired is controlled by Delhi School Education Act, 1973 enacted by the Parliament of India. The Administrator is also appointed by the President of India under Article 239 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a specified landlord as defined under Section 2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 . The Administrator is also appointed by the President of India under Article 239 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a specified landlord as defined under Section 2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 . Posts in connection with the affairs of the State held by the employee in New Delhi Municipal Committee is also covered under the definition of specified landlord as per 1987(1) PLR 414 (supra) and a Bank employee of the Nationalised Bank is also a specified landlord as held in 1992(2) PLR 676 (supra). The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent as per 1990 HRR 78 (supra) is wrong that the certificate of the petitioner has been signed by the Head-master and the Chairman of the school, recognised and aided by the Delhi Administration, governed by Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The school of the petitioner is not a private school, which is established under the Education Act, so it is held that the petitioner is a specified landlord as defined under Sec. 29(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 . Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent." 10. I have heard Mr. I.K. Mehta, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Arun Palli, Advocate on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case. Section 2(hh) of the Act lays down as follows : " "specified landlord" means a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union of State". 11. The reading of the above would show that the legislature when drafted the expression "specified landlord" was well aware about the difficulties of a landlord to whom it wanted to give the benefit that he may not suffer the vagaries of the regular proceedings of the Act. The expression "specified landlord" in my opinion, would mean a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building of his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or State in the matter of recovery of possession of residential or scheduled building. In this regard a reference can be made to Ramesh Birch v. Union of India, 1989(2) RCR(Rent) 79 (SC) : 1988(2) Rent Law Reporter (Pb. & Hry.) (F.B.) 352. This expression used under Section 2(hh) has to be read differently from Article 12 of the Constitution of India as appearing in Part-II. According to Article 12, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the State and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The expression "State" as mentioned in Article 12 of the Constitution, of course, enjoys the expanding concept and would include Corporations and Bodies and other authorities and all those instrumentalities of the State or Government but the expression "State" as used in the Constitution in Article 12 has to be interpreted differently from the expression "specified landlord" as used in Section 2(hh) of the Act. In my opinion, if the following tests are complied with by a landlord who claims himself to be a specified landlord, then his case will be covered by this definition :- 1. Whether such person was and is holding a public service ? 2. Whether his post is in connection with the affairs of the Union of State ? 12. Again I have to determine what is a public service and what are the affairs of Union or of a State. Imparting education to the citizens of this country is a public service which is undertaken by the various institutions whether in the private sector or in the public sector or in the government Sector. There are several institutions working in the private sector which cannot run of its own on account of paucity of funds and, therefore, they take the grant. There are certain educational institutions which are unaided but still they perform a public service in the shape of giving education to the children. With regard to the expression "affairs of Union or of a State" again we have to see whether the educational activities which, in my opinion, is a public service, has some connection with the affairs of the Union or the State. With regard to the expression "affairs of Union or of a State" again we have to see whether the educational activities which, in my opinion, is a public service, has some connection with the affairs of the Union or the State. If a particular institution is controlled by the orders of the Union or of the State and it is established that imparting of education is also one of the affairs of the State, in such a situation a person like the petitioner can take the benefit of Section 2(hh). 13. The learned counsel Mr. Mehta vehemently submitted that the petitioner retired from a private institution which was unaided by the Government and secondly the certificate which has been relied upon by the landlord has not been signed or issued by the competent authority, therefore, he does not fall within the expression of "specified landlord". In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., JT 2002(9) SC 1, Chander Mohan Khanna v. The National Council of Educational Research & Training and others, AIR 1992 SC 76, Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others etc. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., AIR 1983 SC 2178 and Tekraj Vasandi alias K.L. Basandhi v. Union of India and others, AIR 1988 SC 469. 14. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that all these judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no relevancy. In the cited judgments the point for determination was whether a particular institution falls within Article 12 of the Constitution or not. Whether a particular institution was a State or instrumentality of the State. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (supra) the point in controversy was totally different and that was with regard to the minority institutions and their rights. But in the present case Mr. Palli submitted that the petitioners case is covered by the expression "specified landlord" because he was giving a public service in the capacity of a teacher in a private institution whose actions were controlled by the New Delhi Government and which is a creation of the statute. But in the present case Mr. Palli submitted that the petitioners case is covered by the expression "specified landlord" because he was giving a public service in the capacity of a teacher in a private institution whose actions were controlled by the New Delhi Government and which is a creation of the statute. Even to the private institutions those scales of pay were admissible as per the mandate of the enactment which were being enjoined upon by the State run institutions. Mr. Palli also submitted that the certificate in this case has been issued by a competent authority i.e. Headmaster as well as by the Chairman of the school. Therefore, the revision should be dismissed. 15. It is established on the record that the petitioner was working as a teacher in Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa Boys Senior Secondary School, New Delhi and he retired from the service on 30.4.1996, the said school was recognised and aided by Delhi Administration and was governed by Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and this Act was enacted by the pronouncement in the 244th Amendment of Constitution of India, the object of which was to provide better organisation and development, Govt. of India under Article 239 of the Constitution, Delhi and for matters connected therewith or accidental charges thereof or the Administrator appointed by the President. 16. In this view of the matter, the ratio relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is applicable to the facts in hand. The petitioner had retired from a institution which is controlled by the Delhi Education Act, 1973 which is an Act of Parliament. An Administrator of this institution is appointed by the President of India under Article 239 of the Constitution. The certificate in the present case was issued by the Headmaster and the Chairman of the school which is a recognised and aided body by the Delhi Administration. The school of the Petitioner is not a private institution altogether. Its activities are being controlled by the Administrator and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was holding an appointment in a public service and post and thus had the connection with the affairs of the Union and the State Government. This point has been rightly decided by the learned Rent Controller in favour of the landlord. Resultantly, there is no merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed. This point has been rightly decided by the learned Rent Controller in favour of the landlord. Resultantly, there is no merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed. The tenants are given one month time to vacate the demised premises, failing which is will be open to the landlord to claim the possession by filing execution proceedings.