Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 50 (PNJ)

Balwan v. Panchayati Piao Dharamshala

2008-01-11

S.D.ANAND

body2008
Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1. The respondent-landlords applied for the ejectment of the petitioner (presently represented through his legal representatives in terms of order dated 23.1.2007) on a finding that the latter had been proved to be in arrears of rent which he did not tender on the first date of hearing before the learned Rent Controller. 2. It may be noticed, at the very outset, that the respondents claimed that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. As against it, the petitioner did not concede the relationship of landlord and tenant and had raised a plea of adverse possession. 3. The learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority, in a concurrence of views, allowed the eviction petition filed by the present respondents and directed the eviction of the petitioner from the premises under reference. 4. The tenant is in revision. 5. As would be apparent from the material obtaining on the file, the petitioner-tenant filed an application for additional evidence before the learned Appellate Authority. That plea of his was declined vide the impugned judgment itself. It was held by the Appellate Authority that though the judgment dated 12.12.2000, copy whereof was proposed to be tendered in additional evidence, had been delivered after the order dated 6.12.1999 came to be passed by the learned Rent Controller, that judgment is "of no relevance because that suit was for permanent injunction and pertain to civil nature whereas in the case in hand the relationship of landlord and tenant is to be adjudicated upon by the court of Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority and the title of the property is not to be adjudicated upon." 6. Shri HS Hooda, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently assailed the approach of the learned Appellate Authority in declining that application. It was argued that as the tenant- petitioner had declined the existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant and had thereby challenged the locus standi of the respondents to file eviction plea, it was incumbent upon the learned Appellate Authority to allow the reception of the judgment dated 12.12.2000 into additional evidence because the judgment recorded a finding that the respondents had nothing to do with the property under reference. It was illogical for the learned Appellate Authority, the argument proceeded, to observe that the judgment was of no relevance just because it had been rendered in a suit for permanent injunction, a finding in the course whereof could have no bearing upon the relationship of landlord and tenant in an eviction plea under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. 7. As per the own observations recorded by the Appellate Authority, the judgment dated 12.12.2000 came to be rendered after the impugned eviction order dated 6.12.1999 was passed by the learned Rent Controller. The learned Appellate Authority further noticed that "the landlord-respondent in the present ejectment petition have been found to have no locus standi to institute the suit for permanent injunction regarding the property of Panchayati Piao Dharamshala." In view thereof, it was plainly illogical for the learned Appellate Authority to decline that plea on premise of relevance. The present is a case in which the tenant-petitioner had challenged the very locus standi of the respondents as landlords of the premises under reference. That being so, the finding recorded by competent Civil Court in a matter between the same parties and qua the same property was obviously very relevant for determination of the aspect of locus standi. I am, thus, of the considered opinion that the learned Appellate Authority committed grave error of law in declining the plea preferred by the tenant-petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That plea shall stand allowed accordingly. The matter is remanded. The learned Rent Controller shall allow the reception of the additional evidence aforementioned, afford an opportunity of rebuttal to the respondents and proceed to adjudicate upon the controversy afresh in accordance with law. 8. The parties, through their learned Counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller, on.... In view of the fact that the ejectment plea had been filed in the year 1997, the learned Rent Controller shall conclude adjudication in compliance with the orders of this Court, within six months of the date on which the file is put up before it for the first time. 9. Mr. In view of the fact that the ejectment plea had been filed in the year 1997, the learned Rent Controller shall conclude adjudication in compliance with the orders of this Court, within six months of the date on which the file is put up before it for the first time. 9. Mr. HS Hooda, learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner, also argued the invalidity of the impugned eviction order in view of the fact that the mandate of the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 514 had not been complied with inasmuch as the learned Rent Controller did not proceed to make assessment of arrears of rent, interest and cost of litigation and fix provisional rent to be paid by the tenant on the first date of hearing. Now that the matter is being remanded to the learned Rent Controller for reception of additional evidence and adjudication afresh, it would be incumbent for the learned Rent Controller to deal with the plea aforementioned. 10. Insofar as the contempt/COCP No. 700 of 2004 is concerned, the matter appears to involve disputed questions of facts. The plea raised by the tenant-petitioner is that he had been forcibly evicted inspite of the stay order granted by this Court on 14.10.2003. As against it, the plea raised by the respondents is that the tenant-petitioner had been evicted in due course of law on 9.9.2003 in pursuance of the warrants of possession issued by the learned Executing Court on 8.9.2003. The learned Rent Controller shall adjudicate upon the factual aspect and record a precise finding about the following fact: 1. Whether the tenant-petitioner was evicted in due course of law or in violation of the stay order granted by this Court. 11. That finding shall be submitted to this Court within three months from today for passing further appropriate orders in accordance with law.