Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1079 (PNJ)

Vinod Kumar v. Gurdarshan Singh Basra

2008-05-22

RANJIT SINGH

body2008
Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. Aggrieved against the order passed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short, the Act), directing ejectment of the petitioner, he has filed the present revision petition. The respondent filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Act for vacation of property No. 34/1, Banga Road, Phagwara, on the ground that he is a Non-Resident Indian and the petitioner is in arrears of rent and also the building was in dilapidated condition and unfit for human habitation. The ground for personal necessity with intention to start a joint venture with his grand son for establishing a multi media centre and a restaurant in the demised premises was also raised. The respondent had claimed the ownership over the property on the ground that the same had been decreed on his name through a judgment and decree passed by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Phagwara on 19.32007 and, thus, this property is now standing in the name of the respondent. 2. While issuing notice of motion in this case, the contention raised on behalf of counsel for the petitioner that this decree would require compulsorily registration for being read into evidence as the respondent did not have any pre-existing right in the property, was noticed. In support the counsel has placed reliance on the case of Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Ors. (1996-1) 112 P.L.R. 26 : A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 196. It was further pointed out that the respondent has only stated that he was intending to come back to India which would not show or prove a desire on his part that he would require his property for the purposes of settling in India. In addition, the petitioner has also moved an application for leading additional evidence. Reply is filed by the respondent to the said application. I have heard the counsel for the parties. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the petition, the respondent has sold part of a land on 15.12.2006, which would reflect that the need for personal necessity was not genuine and bona fide and this be taken into consideration as a subsequent event permitting the petitioner to bring on record as such. In the reply filed, it has been rightly contended that the sale took place on 15.12.2006 and the case was decided on 13.12.2007. In the reply filed, it has been rightly contended that the sale took place on 15.12.2006 and the case was decided on 13.12.2007. It is, thus, not a subsequent even which can now be taken into consideration. The petitioner never took any action to bring this aspect before the Rent Controller and, thus, can not now be permitted to raise such a plea at this belated stage. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for leading additional evidence is declined, as due diligence on the part of the petitioner to bring this aspect on record is found lacking. 4. Even on merit, the petitioner would not have any case. The learned Counsel for the respondent would point out that this land has fallen to the share of the respondent on account of family settlement. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent did not have any pre-existing right when he filed a suit, leading to passing of a decree in his favour. Even otherwise, the family settlement means that the property belonged to a family, which would in itself show that the respondent had a pre-existing right in the property being a member of the family. In that view of the matter, it would not be possible to say that the respondent did not have any pre-existing right in the property, for which there would be need to get the decree passed in his favour, registered for being admissible in evidence. Otherwise also, reference can be made to the case of Ram Saran v. Gobind Sharma (2003-1) 133 P.L.R. 822 to notice that when civil Court decree is on the basis of family settlement and the premises fall to the share of landlord by a Civil Court decree, then Rent Controller can not go into the validity of a decree of Civil Court even if it be collusive. While so holding, this Court has placed reliance on the case decided by the Honble Supreme Court Ramesh Chand and Ors. v. Raj Kumar. Mr. While so holding, this Court has placed reliance on the case decided by the Honble Supreme Court Ramesh Chand and Ors. v. Raj Kumar. Mr. Bajaj would refer to para 17 of the judgment in the case of Bhoop Singh (supra) to say that court has to examine each case whether the parties have a preexisting right to the immovable property or whether under the order or decree of the court one party having right, title or interest therein agreed or suffered to extinguish the same and created right, title or interest in praesenti in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- or upwards in favour of other party for the first time, either by compromise or pretended consent, only then it can be decided that the document is compulsorily registerable or not. I have already observed that the respondent had a pre-existing right and, thus, the decree was not compulsorily registerable. I would therefore, find no infirmity in the view taken by the Rent Controller and would dismiss the petition.