Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1134 (PNJ)

Vinod Kumar v. Sant Lal

2005-10-27

S.S.SARON

body2005
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Act) for short) has been filed against the order dated 24.8.2005 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Moga whereby the appeal of the landlord-respondent Sant Lal against the order dated 23.10.2002 of the learned Rent Controller, Moga has been allowed after setting aside the order of the Rent Controller and ejectment of the tenant-petitioner has been ordered. 2. The landlord-respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the shop as detailed in the head note of the petition. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenant-petitioner has neither paid nor tendered the rent w.e.f. 8.10.1994 @ Rs. 484/- per month. Besides, he has not paid house tax w.e.f. 1.4.1994. Lastly, that the petitioner requires the shop in question for his own use and occupation. The petition was contested by the tenant-petitioner. It was stated that previously the monthly rent was Rs. 400/- and on 8.10.1990 an agreement was entered into by the parties and the rent was enhanced by 10% only for once after two years. The tenant-petitioner paid rent @ Rs. 440/- per month upto 8.10.1994 as per agreement. It was stated that the respondent is not in arrears of rent since 8.10.1994 @ Rs. 484/- per month which was never fixed. The rate of rent vide writing dated 1.10.1994, it was stated, was Rs. 440/- per month. The tenant-petitioner had paid Rs. 7920/- to the landlord-respondent as advance rent from 1.10.1994 to 31.3.1996. Vide writing dated 8.5.1996 the landlord-respondent received rent for the month of April 1996. Vide receipt dated 8.5.1996, the landlord-respondent took loan of Rs. 30,000/-from the tenant-petitioner. It was agreed that the interest on the loan amount would be adjusted as rent after three years. The loan amount was to be returned to the tenant-petitioner. Both writings dated 1.10.1994 and 8.5.1996, it is stated, were duly executed by the landlord-respondent. Therefore, in order to seek ejectment of the tenant-petitioner, the landlord-respondent had claimed the rent. Besides, it was stated that the tenant-petitioner is not liable to pay house tax and he had never agreed to pay the house tax. Neither the landlord-respondent served any notice on the tenant-petitioner making a claim for house tax. Therefore, in order to seek ejectment of the tenant-petitioner, the landlord-respondent had claimed the rent. Besides, it was stated that the tenant-petitioner is not liable to pay house tax and he had never agreed to pay the house tax. Neither the landlord-respondent served any notice on the tenant-petitioner making a claim for house tax. The allegation of the landlord-respondent that the shop was required for his personal use and occupation was also denied. In fact, the landlord-respondent only wanted to eject the tenant-petitioner. A rejoinder was filed to the petition and the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues: 1. Whether the respondent has not paid arrears of rent w.e.f. 8.10.1994 at the rate of Rs. 484/- p.m.? OPP. 2. Whether the respondent has not paid the house tax w.e.f. 1.4.1994? OPP. 3. Whether the property in dispute requires the petitioner for his own use and occupation? OPP. 4. Whether the respondent is liable to eject from the premises in dispute? OPP. 5. Relief. 3. The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence and material on record, held that the tenant-petitioner has paid rent w.e.f. 1.10.1994 @ Rs. 440/- per month to the landlord-respondent vide receipts Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 and the tenant-petitioner was not in arrears of rent. Accordingly, issue No. 1 regarding non-payment of arrears of rent was decided in favour of the tenant-petitioner. Issue No. 2 regarding house tax was not pressed and in respect of issue No. 3 regarding requirement of the landlord-respondent for his own use and occupation, it was held, that the story of setting-up business in the shop in dispute by the landlord-respondent was nothing but a pretext to seek ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the shop in dispute. Accordingly, the issue was decided against the landlord-respondent and in favour of the tenant-petitioner. It was also held that the tenant-petitioner was not liable to be ejected and issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the tenant-petitioner. Consequently, the petition for ejectment was dismissed. The landlord-respondent aggrieved against the decision of the Rent Controller filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority who after considering the evidence and material on record accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller which order is assailed in this petition. 4. Consequently, the petition for ejectment was dismissed. The landlord-respondent aggrieved against the decision of the Rent Controller filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority who after considering the evidence and material on record accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller which order is assailed in this petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Appellate Authority has gravely erred in setting aside and reversing the well merited and considered decision of the Rent Controller. It is contended that the Appellate Authority erred in concluding that the signatures of Sant Lal on documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 are forged. The reliance placed on the tutored expert, it is contended, was unwarranted and in fact the said documents were proved by the deposition of Baldev Raj (RW1), Bhupinder Singh (RW-2), Vaneet Kumar (RW3), Manjit Singh (RW4), Dr. V.K. Pahuja i.e. tenant-petitioner (RW-5) himself. It is contended that the evidence of the expert produced by the landlord-respondent (AW7) and his report Ex.AW7/1 is of no consequence in the presence of direct and positive evidence. Besides, it is contended that the signatures of the landlord are in Urdu and the expert had stated that he does not know Urdu and was not in a position to read the entire portion Mark-D. Besides, it is contended that the landlord-respondent is a semiliterate person and does not possess any special style of signatures. It is also contended that the landlord-respondent concealed the material fact that as per the agreement, the interest accruing on the loan amount of Rs. 30,000/- was to be adjusted towards rent of the shop and after lapse of three years i.e. after 3.5.1999 the landlord-respondent was to return the principal amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the tenant-petitioner and thereafter the tenant-petitioner was to start paying rent @ Rs. 440/- per month. Even the ground for personal requirement set-up by the landlord-respondent, it is contended, is without basis and the landlord has failed to prove that he needs the shop for his personal use and occupation and rather, it is mere wishful desire without element of any need therein. The landlord-respondent in collusion with his son was misusing the provisions of law to achieve the ejectment of the terant-petitioner. The evidence led by the landlord-respondent to establish bona fide need, it is contended, does not inspire any confidence. 5. The landlord-respondent in collusion with his son was misusing the provisions of law to achieve the ejectment of the terant-petitioner. The evidence led by the landlord-respondent to establish bona fide need, it is contended, does not inspire any confidence. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. As has already been noticed, the ground seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the demised premises are that the tenant-petitioner has defaulted in the payment of rent @ Rs. 484/- per month w.e.f. 8.10.1994 and that the landlord-respondent requires the shop in question for his own use and occupation. The matter in dispute between the parties as regards nonpayment of rent revolves around two receipts dated 1.10.1994 (Ex.R.1) and dated 8.5.1996 (Ex.R.2). The rent agreement between the parties Ex.A.2 shows that the rate of rent at the relevant time of tenancy was Rs. 440/- per month. It was inter alia provided therein that the rent was to be enhanced by 10% after every two years and subsequently rent was to be paid by the same enhancement. In this manner, the rate of rent in respect of the demised premises came to be Rs. 440/- per month instead of Rs. 400/- per month. The receipt (Ex.R.1) is regarding the payment of rent w.e.f. 1.10.1994 and the writing Ex.R.2 is about payment of Rs. 440/- as rent for the month of April 1996 and also about the payment of Rs. 30,000/-. These two receipts have direct bearing on the question whether the tenant-petitioner is in arrears of rent. Anil Kumar Gupta (AW-7), a document expert produced by the landlord-respondent has submitted his report Ex.AW.7/1 which is supported by photo charts Ex.AW-7/2 to Ex.AW-7/6 and Ex.AW-7/7 to Ex.AW-7/17 are the negatives. In his report Anil Kumar Gupta AW-7 has opined that the questioned signatures are forged ones and do not correspond to their writing characteristics with the standard signatures of Sant Lal (landlord-respondent) marked as S.1 to S.2. The said witness was cross-examined by another expert Dr. Atul Kumar Singla in detail. The learned lower Appellate Authority after considering the report and evidence found that the learned Rent Controller had erroneously discarded the expert report of the expert (AW-7). The said witness was cross-examined by another expert Dr. Atul Kumar Singla in detail. The learned lower Appellate Authority after considering the report and evidence found that the learned Rent Controller had erroneously discarded the expert report of the expert (AW-7). The following observations of the Appellate Authority are apposite: Perusal of Ex.A2, Ex.A3, Ex.R1 and Ex.R2, ejectment petition and rejoinder shows that petitioner Sant Lal signs in Urdu. He draws his signatures in Urdu with Urdu alphabet Seen, Noon, Te, Lam, Alif, Lam. Perusal of his admitted signatures shows that he starts his signature with letter seen of Urdu alphabet without becoming much particular about putting Nukta to denote Noon. While drawing Lal in Urdu script after first Lam he draws second Lam by joining the same with upper end of Alif after first Lam and thereby creating an eye. Comparison of admitted signatures of Sant Lal with disputed signatures on Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 it is clear that on Ex.R1 an Ex.R2 some one had written Sant Lal in Urdu with much care while wherever Sant Lal had signed he had signed in running hand. On Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 Lal has been written by drawing Lam then Alif then another Lam Last Lam is not making any eye rather, Alif after first Lam has been drawn with much care. If one knows how Urdu is written and how alphabet of Urdu script are being inter connected for drawing words, it is crystal clear beyond any doubt that on Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 signatures of Sant Lal were not made by the person who had signed on Ex.A2 rent agreement as Sant Lal. Therefore, person signing as Sant Lal at different places on Ex.A2 is a different person than who had signed on Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 as Sant Lal. Therefore, signatures of Sant Lal on Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 are forged ones. It is crystal clear that Ex.R1 and R2 are forged ones. It is crystal clear that Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were not signed by petitioner Sant Lal and these documents were not executed by him. Therefore, statements of RW1 Baldev Raj, RW2 Bhupinder Singh, RW3 Vaneet Kumar, RW4 Manjit Singh and also of RW5 Dr. Vinod Kumar are unable to inspire confidence to hold due execution of Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. These witnesses are telling lie so far execution of Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 is concerned. Therefore, statements of RW1 Baldev Raj, RW2 Bhupinder Singh, RW3 Vaneet Kumar, RW4 Manjit Singh and also of RW5 Dr. Vinod Kumar are unable to inspire confidence to hold due execution of Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. These witnesses are telling lie so far execution of Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 is concerned. When it is apparent to the unaided eye that signatures of Sant Lal on Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 are forged ones testimony of witnesses of respondent is unable to improve such inherent defect of Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. Similarly Ex.R5 to Ex.R7 copies of statement of income are unable to enhance the case of respondent. 6. Consequently, it was held that there has been no transaction between the landlord-respondent and the tenant-petitioner as is reflected in Ex.R1 and R2 and as such the landlord-respondent had proved that the tenant-petitioner was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 8.10.1994 @ Rs. 440/- per month which was not tendered by the respondent during the pendency of the ejectment petition. Therefore, the tenant-petitioner had rendered himself liable to ejectment due to non-payment of arrears of rent. The findings and conclusions reached at by the Appellate Authority are based on facts and after the documents have been examined by it. This Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Act is not to appreciate and re-appreciate the evidence dictated by mere inclination to take a different view of the facts. The revisional jurisdiction as is well known is confined to the legality or propriety of the order under revision or the proceedings of the authorities and the scope is not to be enlarged to examine whether a different view is possible. Besides, it is not shown that the reasoning adopted by the Appellate Authority after examination of the documents on record is in any manner perverse or irrational or that the Appellate Authority has been guilty of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power which can be said to have resulted in manifest injustice to the tenant-petitioner. 7. The case of the landlord-respondent as regards the demised premises being required by the landlord-respondent for his personal bona fide need was also upheld and the findings of the Rent Controller in this regard were set aside. It was observed that Pal Singh (AW-1) had been examined who deposed that the son of the landlord-respondent, namely, Kimti Lal was residing separate from him. It was observed that Pal Singh (AW-1) had been examined who deposed that the son of the landlord-respondent, namely, Kimti Lal was residing separate from him. Besides, the landlord respondent, his wife Raj Rani, daughter Anita Rani, one more daughter Sangita Rani and his son Hira Lal were joint in residence. Sant Lal landlord-respondent in his deposition as AW-6 submitted that he was a tenant of Bhagwant Kaur and he wants to run his own shop in the demised premises after getting it vacated from the tenant-petitioner. Smt. Bhagwant Kaur (AW-5) also appeared in support of the case of the landlord-respondent. Therefore, it has come on record that the landlord-respondent requires the demised shop for running grocery shop in the same along with his son Hira Lal. This was held to be a bona fide need of the landlord and in rebuttal to this need of the landlord-respondent there was oral testimony of tenant-petitioner. It was observed that when he has forged the documents Ex.R.1 and R.2 he cannot be said to be a truthful witness. 8. In the circumstances, the need of the landlord-respondent has been found to be there by the Appellate Authority and this is borne out from the circumstances that the landlord-respondent was himself running a shop in another rented premises and wanted to run the shop in his own premises along with his younger son, namely, Hira Lal. This need has been established from the statement of Pal Singh (AW-1) and Bhagwant Kaur (AW-5). Consequently this finding of personal bona fide need is also a finding of fact which warrants no interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court which, as already noticed, is limited and confined to the propriety of the order under revision. 9. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.