Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1303 (PNJ)

Dal Chand v. Omkar Saroop

2008-08-01

NAWAB SINGH

body2008
Judgment Nawab Singh, J. 1. Ejectment of present revision-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as `tenant) from the demised premises was ordered by the Rent Controller, Palwal, District Faridabad by order dated November 29, 2006 on the ground of non-payment of rent and the appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its judgment dated July 31, 2007. 2. By filing the present revision, tenant has sought to impugn both the orders passed by the Courts below referred to above. 3. Grounds pleaded before this Court by the tenant are that the present respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as `landlord) was not the owner of the demised premises and the rate of rent was Rs. 500/- per month and that he (tenant) was not in arrears of rent. 4. So far as the first contention is concerned, the legislature has specifically made a distinction between an owner of a premises and a landlord. The Act deals with the rights and obligations of a landlord only as defined in the Act. Ownership for the purpose of a premises is immaterial for the purpose of the Act as has been held in K.D. Dewan v. Harbhajan S. Parihar, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 214 : AIR 2002 SC 67. Landlord can maintain an application for eviction without being the owner of the premises. It was so ruled by the Honble Supreme Court in E. Parashuraman (D) by Lrs. v. V. Doraiswami (D) by L.R., 2005(2) RCR(Rent) 590 : 2005(2) LAR 548 (SC). 5. The above observations were made in order to emphasize the distinction between the owner of the premises and the landlord. In view of the facts involved in the case in hand, the application for eviction was filed by Omkar Sarup as the attorney of the owner Jawahar Lal he was not only the landlord but also duly constituted general attorney of the owner. The power of attorney is Exhibit PW-1/A. To say the least, the argument is fallacious and rather, mis-conceived. 6. It is now to be seen whether the tenant was guilty of non-payment of rent. In this case, rent note (Exhibit P-1) is available. The execution of which stands admitted by the tenant in so many words in his statement dated April 2, 2003 before the Rent Controller. Execution of two receipts (Exhibit P-2 and P-3) regarding payment of Rs. 18,70/- on each occasion has also been admitted. In this case, rent note (Exhibit P-1) is available. The execution of which stands admitted by the tenant in so many words in his statement dated April 2, 2003 before the Rent Controller. Execution of two receipts (Exhibit P-2 and P-3) regarding payment of Rs. 18,70/- on each occasion has also been admitted. This is sufficient and wholly satisfactory evidence of the rate of rent. 7. Entry of rate of rent in the assessment register of Municipal Council, Palwal (RW-1/B) read with the statement of the tenant can be a relevant piece of evidence regarding the rate of rent provided there is no other documentary evidence available. The survey is done for ascertaining the rent of the buildings but many a times, it is done in the absence of the landlord. Although, the evidentiary value of such evidence may not be zero, yet it cannot hold the field in face of proved documentary evidence of rate of rent whether in the shape of rent note, a receipt or other such document. 8. In this view of the matter, the entry in the assessment register cannot be of such value in this case. 9. The receipts of rent (Exhibit P-2 and P-3) are for the month of January and February 1999. There was a specific and binding stipulation in the rent note that rent shall be paid against receipts only. The contention of the tenant that the rate of rent was Rs. 500/- per month has already been dispelled. The contention that he had paid the rent and was not in arrears is untenable. Not only there was a covenant in the rent note, the tenant, when he actually paid rent, got receipts (Exhibit P-2 and P-3) issued. It cannot be believed for subsequent period he will pay rent without receipt. 10. It would thus, be seen that tenant had not paid the rent and ground of non-payment was established beyond any manner of doubt. 11. Both the Courts below rightly ordered the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises on the grounds stated above. 12. In upshot, for the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed.