Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1110 (PNJ)

Gian Chand v. Prem Chadha

2004-09-29

KIRAN ANAND LALL

body2004
Judgment Kiran Anand Lall, J. 1. This is tenants revision, challenging the order dated 15.1.1986 of the Appellate Authority vide which it affirmed the order of his ejectment from the demised shop passed by the Rent-Controller, on the ground of non-payment of rent. 2. Undisputed facts are that the shop was let out to the petitioner by Shanti Devi deceased, mother of Smt. Prem and Smt. Sardaran respondents, vide rent note dated 3.5.1954 and the rate of rent was Rs. 30 per month. Since Shanti Devi was deaf and dumb, this court had appointed Prem respondent as the Guardian of her properties, vide order dated 23.3.1959. She died on 10.11.1980. Her husband, Shanti Sarup, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is absolute owner of her estate including the shop in question. In the alternative, he asked for grant of 1/3rd share in her properties, by partition, and also for rendition of accounts of the income of properties, including the rent realised by Prem as manager (guardian) of the properties. He also claimed relief of injunction restraining Prem and Sardaran from realising rent from the tenants. Gian Chand petitioner was a party to that suit. Shanti Sarup had claimed his entitlement to the entire estate of Shanti Devi, being khana-damad in the house of his in-laws. He also pleaded that his daughters, Prem and Sardaran, had no right to succeed to the estate of Shanti Devi. Prem and Sardaran set up a will, alleged to have been executed in their favour by Shanti Devi. On the application of Shanti Sarup for grant of interim relief, the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Jalandhar, ordered vide Ex.A4 dated 17.3.1981, that Prem who would have right to realise rent from the tenants till the final disposal of the suit, in accordance with the orders of this court dated 23.3.1959 (supra). The learned Sub Judge further restrained Shanti Sarup from stopping Prem to realise rent from the tenants. Thereafter, that Prem and Sardaran filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, "the Act") against Gian Chand petitioner for his ejectment from the shop under reference, on the ground of non-payment of rent. 3. The petitioner contested the ejectment application, denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondents. 3. The petitioner contested the ejectment application, denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondents. He also disputed validity of the will and further denied the status of respondents herein as daughters of Shanti Devi. It was further pleaded that the shop is, in fact, in possession of M/s Gian Chand Mehar Chand as tenants and rent is also being paid by this firm. He also challenged the jurisdiction of the Rent-Controller to try the ejectment petition, as the question of ownership of the shop was pending decision in the civil suit, above referred to. According to him, the shop was, in fact, owned by Shanti Sarup, husband of Shanti Devi, and he (petitioner) had been paying rent to him, since 1.7.1972, against receipts. 4. The Rent-Controller framed the following issues:- 1. Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? 2. Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent? OPA 3. Whether the petition is triable by the Rent-Controller? OPA 4. Relief. 5. After answering all the issues in favour of the respondents herein, the Rent-Controller allowed the petition. The petitioner herein challenged the verdict in appeal. But, the Appellate Authority, too, affirmed the ejectment order on the ground of non-payment of rent. The petitioner, thereupon, came up in revision to this court under Section 15(5) of the Act. 6. Though in the grounds of revision, the petitioner had attacked the order of the Appellate Authority on many counts, learned counsel for the petitioner addressed this court only with regard to the finding on issue No. 1, i.e. the issue pertaining to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 7. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the respondents and their father, Shanti Sarup, are at daggers-drawn with each other. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner had not paid rent to the respondent, either before or after the filing of ejectment petition. His case is that no rent was due from him. He had been paying rent to Shanti Sarup. After having heard both sides and having considered the evidence on record, I find that the petitioner is trying to take advantage of the enmity between the respondents and their father, in collusion with the latter. His case is that no rent was due from him. He had been paying rent to Shanti Sarup. After having heard both sides and having considered the evidence on record, I find that the petitioner is trying to take advantage of the enmity between the respondents and their father, in collusion with the latter. It is an admitted fact that Prem respondent was appointed as Guardian of her mother, Shanti Devi, for managing her (of Shanti Devi) properties, by this court, as early as on 23.3.1959. After the death of Shanti Devi, her husband Shanti Sarup laid claim of ownership qua her properties including the disputed shop, by filing a declaratory suit, in which Gian Chand petitioner (tenant) was also a party, besides Prem and Sardaran respondents. In that suit also, the trial court allowed Prem respondent to realise rent from the tenants in the properties of Shanti Devi, till the final disposal of the suit, in accordance with the orders of this court dated 23.3.1959 (supra), and further, Shanti Sarup was also restrained from interfering with the realisation of rent by Prem respondent from tenants. So, by virtue of court orders dated 23.3.1959 and 17.3.1981 (supra), it was Prem respondent who was authorised to realise rent from the tenants including Gian Chand petitioner. And, once it was so, it is Prem respondent who is landlord of the rented properties of Shanti Devi deceased, including the shop n question, as per the definition of "Landlord" as given in Section 2 (c) of the Act which reads as under:- "Landlord" means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf or for the benefit, of any other person, or as a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person... 9. As such, the courts below had rightly held Prem respondent as the landlady of the shop in question, qua the petitioner who was, admittedly, tenant therein. The question as to whether the petitioner had or had not been paying rent to Shanti Sarup need not be gone into in this petition, as the latter was not entitled to receive rent of the properties of Shanti Devi including the property in dispute. The question as to whether the petitioner had or had not been paying rent to Shanti Sarup need not be gone into in this petition, as the latter was not entitled to receive rent of the properties of Shanti Devi including the property in dispute. Similarly, the claim of the respondents with regard to ownership over the shop on the basis of the will alleged to have been executed in their favour by Shanti Devi is also not required to be considered in the petition in hand, as the same cannot have any bearing on the decision of ejectment petition. 10. In the light of what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in the petition. The concurrent finding recorded by the Rent-Controller and the Appellate Authority about the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, is based on cogent evidence, and no interference with the same is called for. The ejectment of the petitioner-tenant, on account of his failure to pay the arrears of rent to the respondents, was, therefore, rightly ordered by the Rent-Controller and the Appellate Authority. 11. The petition shall stand dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.