Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1024 (PNJ)

Randhir Singh v. Sudesh Kumar

2004-09-09

M.M.KUMAR

body2004
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This is tenants petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties because the landlord-respondent had purchased the tenanted premises from the earlier landlord, namely, Om Parkash son of Chhote Lal. It has also been held that the landlord-respondent is in personal need and bona fide requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation. 2. The view of the Appellate Authority is evident from the perusal of paragraphs 10 and 11 of its order which record the findings that the tenant had admitted the filing of other ejectment petitions by the landlord- respondent against every other tenant in respect of the demised premises i.e. House No. 74, Khatik Mandi, Jalandhar Cantt. It has further been concluded that the family of the landlord-respondent was big enough and the accommodation available to his family was not sufficient. He required sufficient accommodation for himself and his family to live peacefully and comfortably. The plea that the landlord-respondent was not infact the landlord, as the property has been purchased by him vide registered sale deed Ex. P/2 from Om Parkash son of Samaya Ram, has been rejected by both the Courts below. The view of the Appellate Authority is well reasoned as is discernible from the following extracts of para 11 :- "The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to take benefit of the entry in the house tax assessment register mark A where Om Parkash son of Samaya Ram has been recorded to be owner of the property number 74 while the petitioner has purchased the property number 74 from Om Parkash son of Chhote Lal. This anomaly is of no help to the appellant. Firstly, it is nowhere the case of the petitioner that Om Parkash son of Chhote Lal was not the owner of the suit property. Secondly, the entry in the house tax register is not the proof of title of the person recorded therein as owner. Thirdly, there is clear admission of tenant/appellant in the written reply wherein he has stated that the petitioner has intentionally purchased the property at throw away price and intends to sell the same after getting it vacated from all the tenants. Thirdly, there is clear admission of tenant/appellant in the written reply wherein he has stated that the petitioner has intentionally purchased the property at throw away price and intends to sell the same after getting it vacated from all the tenants. This amounts to clear admission of the title of the petitioner over the suit property by the appellant. It has also been averred that the petitioner has also got the premises with Dalip Chand and others vacated. Dalip Chand was admittedly another tenant in the demised premises and the tenant/respondent has alleged that the ejectment orders have already been passed in favour of the petitioner with regard to tenancy of Dalip Chand and others. Fourthly, the respondent tendered the arrears of rent on 15.1.1999 to the petitioner without making any submission that the petitioner is not the landlord. All these facts are sufficient to hold that there is admitted relationship of landlord and the tenant in between the parties and the argument in this regard raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is without any basis." 3. After hearing Mr. Sanjay Tangri, learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the landlord-respondent became the landlord by virtue of operation of law as envisaged by Section 2(c) of the Act. It has been provided that any person who derives a title from the earlier landlord, would also be considered the landlord. The discrepancy in describing the name of the previous owner/landlord in the house tax register Mark A has been satisfactorily resolved as it has been observed by the Appellate Authority that it was neither the case of the petitioner that Om Parkash son of Chhote Lal was not his landlord nor house tax register furnishes any proof of title of the person recorded therein as owner. Apart from the other reason given, these reasons are sufficient to conclude coupled with the fact that no evidence has been brought on record to controvert the sale deed dated 19.2.1991, Ex. P/2. There is no merit in this petition and it does not warrant admission. 4. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.