Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 631 (PNJ)

Nirmal Kumari Sharma v. Madan Lal

2008-03-04

SURYA KANT

body2008
JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J. (oral):- This revision petition is directed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 8.8.2003 passed by the Appellate Authority, Panchkula under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. 2. The dispute pertains to a shop situated within the municipal limits of Kalka town which was previously owned by petitioner No.1 (Smt.Nirmal Kumari Sharma). She rented out the same to the respondenttenant at the rate of Rs.350/- per month on 19.4.1991. 3. Petitioner No.1 filed an eviction petition against the respondent on 8.6.1996 alleging, inter alia, that he is not paying the arrears of rent since April 1992 and, thus, was liable to be evicted. 4. Upon notice, the respondent put in appearance and instead of tendering the rent which had become due upto June, 1996, he took up the plea that the rent had been in fact already paid by him to the petitioner landlady. 5. During the pendency of the eviction petition, petitioner No.1 sold the demised premises to petitioner No.2 (Smt.Veena Sharma) by way of a registered sale deed dated 03.10.1996. 6. Veena Sharma-the vendee, thereafter moved an application for her impleadment as a co-petitioner and the same having been allowed, both i.e. the previous landlady and the new one were pursuing the eviction petition. Following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:- “1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the premises is dispute for non-payment of rent as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the premises in dispute is required for personal necessity by the plaintiff? OPP. 2-A.Whether the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPA. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit? OPD. 4. Relief. 7. While deciding issue No.1, the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 5.5.2003 held that the “respondent is proved to be in arrears of rent” since the month of April, 1992 upto the filing of the petition and the respondent has only paid rent of Rs.1050/- along with costs of Rs.100/- and Rs.10/- i.e. total Rs.1160/- which was less than the arrears of rent which he was liable to pay. Issue No.1 was accordingly decided against the respondent-tenant, leading to an order of eviction against him. 8. The respondent-tenant preferred an appeal which has since been allowed by the Appellate Authority vide its impugned judgment dated 8.8.2003. 9. Issue No.1 was accordingly decided against the respondent-tenant, leading to an order of eviction against him. 8. The respondent-tenant preferred an appeal which has since been allowed by the Appellate Authority vide its impugned judgment dated 8.8.2003. 9. While allowing the appeal, the Appellate Authority has not upset the above-reproduced finding of fact returned by the Rent Controller, however, has held that petitioner No.1 (Smt.Nirmal Kumari) having seized to be landlady and owner of the premises, cannot seek eviction of the tenant from the disputed premises. 10. There is no quarrel on facts that the dispute pertains to the nonpayment of arrears of rent with effect from April 1992. Petitioner No.1 had seized to be the landlady only on execution of sale deed dated 03.10.1996. Admittedly, there is a finding returned by the Rent Controller with regard to non-payment of arrears of rent for the period prior to the execution of the sale deed. 11. While accepting the tenant’s appeal on the ground that the original landlord had no locus standi to continue with the eviction proceedings, the Appellate Authority also appears to have over-looked the view taken by this Court in the case of Manmohan Singh and others vs. Smt.Santosh Kumari and others, AIR 1984 P&H 220. 12. However, in the absence of any material on record, especially the details with regard to the arrears of rent tendered by the petitioner on the first date of hearing and/or in the absence of an opportunity to him to argue before the Appellate Authority that the rent prior to June, 1996 had been paid by him to petitioner No.1, I am not inclined to return any finding of fact on the said question rather deem it appropriate to remit the case to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision. For the reasons aforestated, the impugned judgment dated 8.8.2003 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority for afresh decision in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 3.4.2008. ------------------