Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 344 (PNJ)

Paras Ram v. Mahant Raghbir Dass

2004-03-22

VINEY MITTAL

body2004
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - The tenant is the petitioner before this Court. 2. The landlord filed an ejectment application under the provisions of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground that she had not paid the arrears of rent with effect from January 1, 1984. Additionally, the tenant was guilty of such acts and conduct which has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. She had converted the verandah into a room and further divided the room into two rooms. She had also constructed two kothries and one bathroom in the open space forming part of the demised premises. 3. The tenant contested the eviction petition. She denied the relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties. She claimed that the property No. 19449-1351 was taken by her on a rent of Rs. 6/- per month. It was admitted that the rate of rent was increased from Rs. 6/- to Rs. 15/- per month but a plea was raised that the increase of rent was made when the rented portion was converted into two rooms from one kothri and verandah with the consent and knowledge of the landlord. It was also claimed that the tenant was living in Property No. 784/9 inside Lahori Gate circular road, Amritsar which is quite independent and different from the property covered under the rent note. 4. An objection was taken with regard to the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller to try the proceedings. The tenant also claimed that the landlord was a big landlord while the tenant is a poor widow and he wanted to usurp the Property No. 784/9, although he is not the owner of the said property. 5. The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also held that a written rent note dated December 10, 1978 was executed by the tenant in favour of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller also found that the tenant by her acts and conduct had impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant. 6. The matter was taken up in appeal. The learned Rent Controller also found that the tenant by her acts and conduct had impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant. 6. The matter was taken up in appeal. The learned first appellate Authority re-appraised the entire evidence. The following observations were made :- "15. Learned Rent Controller has given categorical finding that there exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to assail the said finding. In the replication the landlord has taken stand that previously husband of respondent Daropdi took the premises on rent and later on Daropdi executed rent note in favour of the landlord in the year 1978. Both the rent notes have been proved as A1 and A2 on the file. It is settled principle of law that tenant is estopped from denying the ownership of landlord. The tenant is bound to surrender the possession to his landlord. The stand taken by the appellant regarding adverse possession has been held not proved by the learned Rent Controller. No argument regarding adverse possession has been advanced during the course of arguments in the appeal. 16. Mere fact that land has been acquired by Improvement Trust does not absolve the tenant to surrender the possession in favour of the landlord. The learned Counsel for the appellant has admitted during the course of argument that possession has not been taken by the Improvement Trust so far. The tenant can not repudiate the tenancy of the landlord. 17. So far as the finding of the Learned Rent Controller to the effect that the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises has not been assailed during the course of arguments." 7. In view of the aforesaid findings, the learned appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant. 8. The tenant has remained still dis-satisfied and has approached this Court through the present revision petition. 9. The original tenant Daropdi having died, her legal representatives have filed the present petition. 10. I have heard Shri R.K. Duggal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri B.R. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 11. 9. The original tenant Daropdi having died, her legal representatives have filed the present petition. 10. I have heard Shri R.K. Duggal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri B.R. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 11. Shri R.K. Duggal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has primarily argued that the landlord was not the owner of the property in dispute inasmuch as the Improvement Trust had acquired the said property and vide Award dated December 2, 1966 had assessed the compensation. The compensation already stood deposited. On that basis, the learned counsel argued that the eviction petition filed by the landlord-respondent was not maintainable. 12. On the other hand, Shri B.R. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord has argued that the two authorities below have concurrently held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Shri Mahajan has further placed reliance upon the rent note dated December 12, 1978 executed by Daropdi in favour of the landlord. On that basis, Shri Mahajan argues that in fact the plea of the present petitioners, denying the ownership of the landlord-respondent, was not even available. He further places reliance upon provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act. 13. I have duly considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. In my considered view, there is no merit in the present revision petition. 15. Both the authorities below have concurrently held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The rent note was originally executed by the husband of Daropdi, namely, Sohan Lal. After his death Daropdi herself executed a rent note dated December 12, 1978. Both the rent notes have been duly proved on the record as Exs. A1 and A2. In view of the aforesaid documentary evidence, it was not open to tenant Daropdi or the present petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the tenant, to deny the ownership of landlord, Bawa Raghbir Dass. There is a specific bar of Section 116 of the Evidence Act in this regard. 16. A1 and A2. In view of the aforesaid documentary evidence, it was not open to tenant Daropdi or the present petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the tenant, to deny the ownership of landlord, Bawa Raghbir Dass. There is a specific bar of Section 116 of the Evidence Act in this regard. 16. It is also clear from the perusal of the order passed by the learned appellate Authority that the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller with regard to tenants having impaired the value and utility of the demised premises had not even been assailed before the appellate Authority. 17. In view of the aforesaid fact, there is no merit in the present revision petition. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.