Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1879 (PNJ)

Raj Kaur v. Prem Chand

2009-11-03

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2009
Judgment Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. 1. The matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal, of present revision petition filed by the landlady and emanating from the record is that originally, Smt. Raj Kaur wife of Jeet Singh landlady (hereinafter to be referred as "the landlady") filed a petition, invoking the provisions of section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (as made applicable to Chandigarh) (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") for ejectment of Prem Chand tenant (hereinafter to be referred as "the tenant") from the demised premises, inter-alia, pleading that late Smt. Inder Kaur wife of Uttam Singh was the owner and landlady, who had inducted the tenant on rent on the top floor (Barsati portion) of House No. 120 Sector 20-A, Chandigarh under the oral tenancy. After the demise of Inder Kaur, she (Raj Kaur) became the owner and landlady of the same. The present rate of rent is stated to be Rs. 3000/- per month, which was payable in advance by 7th of each month of the calender year, but the tenant stopped paying the rent to the landlady with effect from 1.7.1997. Since then, the tenant is claimed to be in arrears of rent. 2. The case set up by the landlady, in brief, in so far as relevant, was that the tenant is also guilty of making alteration/construction of one room on the back courtyard of the top floor, which has put the entire building to the threat of resumption by the Chandigarh Administration and has also materially impaired the value the utility of the same. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the landlady that since the tenant is in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month with effect from 1.7.1997 and he has also constructed one room impairing the value and utility of the tenanted premises, so, he is liable to be evicted. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the landlady filed an ejectment petition against the tenant, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 4. The tenant contested the petition and filed the written statement, inter- alia, pleading certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the same as the landlady has not come to the Court with clean hands. 5. On merits, the ownership of Inder Kaur wife of Uttam Singh was admitted. 4. The tenant contested the petition and filed the written statement, inter- alia, pleading certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the same as the landlady has not come to the Court with clean hands. 5. On merits, the ownership of Inder Kaur wife of Uttam Singh was admitted. However, the ownership of the present landlady was denied. According to the tenant, in fact, the rate of rent was Rs. 1000/- and not Rs. 3000/- per month as claimed by the landlady. He is neither in arrears of rent claimed nor has made any alteration. He was paying the rent regularly. He has claimed that he is in possession of the demised premises as such, which existed prior to inception of his tenancy. In all, according to the tenant, since he has not made any alteration or construction, therefore, question of any impairment in value and utility of the tenanted premises did not arise at all. It will not be out of place to mention here that the tenant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the ejectment petition and prayed for its dismissal. 6. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the grounds pleaded in the ejectment petition, the landlady filed the rejoinder. In the wake of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the rent is short and invalid ? OPP 1(a) Whether the rate of rent is Rs. 3,000/-per month ? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the premises as alleged ? OPP 3. Relief. 7. Thereafter, the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence in order to substantiate their respective pleaded cases. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition filed by the landlady and appeal filed by her was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide impugned orders dated 25.3.2005 and 26.8.2006 respectively. 8. Having lost the legal battle in the Courts below, the landlady approached this Court through the present petition. That is how I am seized of the matter. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the evidence brought on record with their valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, as there is no merit, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons mentioned here-in-below. 10. That is how I am seized of the matter. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the evidence brought on record with their valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, as there is no merit, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons mentioned here-in-below. 10. At the very outset, it may be added that it cannot possibly be denied that a very heavy burden of proof to prove each ground of ejectment is upon the landlady in order to seek the eviction of the tenant. The landlady filed the ejectment petition on the grounds of non-payment of rent and materially impairing the value and utility of the tenanted premises. The Courts below have recorded a finding of fact based on the appraisal of evidence that the tenant is neither in arrears of rent nor he made any construction in this relevant direction. 11. However, the customary argument of the learned counsel for the landlady that as the tenant did not deposit the rent at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month, therefore, he was liable to be ejected, is not only devoid of merit, but misplaced as well. No doubt, the landlady has claimed the rate of rent as Rs. 3000/- per month in her petition, but the same was stoutly denied and the tenant has specifically claimed that the rate of rent was Rs. 1000/- per month. The landlady has not produced any evidence in this respect except her solitary statement. Admittedly, the tenancy was oral and no rent note was executed between the parties. But the landlady has not brought on record any receipt/counter receipt or any other document to prove that the rate of rent was Rs. 3000/- per month. In the absence of the same, no implicit reliance can be placed on the self serving statement of landlady (PW1). It means, the landlady has withheld the best possible evidence and legal adverse inference against her in this connection is inevitable. The perusal of evidence would reveal that Inder Kaur (since deceased) original owner appointed her husband Uttam Singh as attorney to manage the property vide General Power of Attorney Ex.RW2/1, who was collecting the rent from different tenants. Had the rate of rent was Rs. The perusal of evidence would reveal that Inder Kaur (since deceased) original owner appointed her husband Uttam Singh as attorney to manage the property vide General Power of Attorney Ex.RW2/1, who was collecting the rent from different tenants. Had the rate of rent was Rs. 3000/- per month as claimed by the landlady, then she ought to have issued receipts to the tenant of that amount. 12. Not only that, the landlady has not produced any cogent evidence on record in this respect, on the contrary, the tenant has produced copies of receipts Exs.R3 to R87, which would reveal that Uttam Singh, attorney of late Inder Kaur, used to collect the rent of the tenanted premises from different tenants. The tenant has also produced on record the original receipt Ex.R1, vide which aforesaid Uttam Singh received the rent from the present tenant Prem Chand at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month on 3rd August, 1999. The receipt Ex.R1 has been duly proved by Lakhwinder Kaur (RW1), who is none else but daughter-in-law of late Inder Kaur and Uttam Singh and sister-in-law of present landlady. She has also maintained that the rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs. 1000/- per month and it was paid till August 1999. So much so, the tenant has also corroborated the statement of Lakhwinder Kaur (RW1) and his pleaded case on all vital counts and inter-alia stated that the rate of rent was Rs.1000/- per month. 13. Hence, it would be seen that it stands proved on record by convincing, reliable, trustworthy, oral as well as documentary evidence on record as discussed here-in-above that the rate of rent was Rs. 1000/-, which he has already paid/tendered and not Rs. 3000/- per month as claimed by the landlady. Hence, the contrary argument is without any basis. 14. Now adverting to the second ground of ejectment, no doubt, the landlady has pleaded that the tenant has constructed one room in the back courtyard of the top floor, which has put the entire building to the threat of resumption and as also the fact of materially impairing the value and utility of the tenanted premises, but the same has been specifically denied by the tenant in his written statement, wherein he has stated that he is a tenant on the top floor as such as existed before inception of his tenancy. Since he has not constructed any additional room, so question of materially impairing the value and utility of the tenanted premises did not arise. 15. Although, landlady (PW1) has stated that the tenant has constructed one room on the courtyard of demised premises, but her solitary statement is not sufficient to discharge the burden of proof in this respect. Sequelly, the statement of Rajesh Kumar, Draftsman (PW2) would not come to her rescue because he has admitted during his cross-examination that he neither visited the spot nor inspected the premises. The case of the landlady is that the alteration made by the tenant has put the entire building to the threat of resumption, is again without any basis, because she has failed to place on record any such notice of resumption issued by the competent authority. Moreover, no specific date, month or year or how, when and in what manner, the constructions were made by the tenant, has not been mentioned in the ejectment petition. In other words, the pleadings of the landlady in this respect are as vague as anything. 16. Not only that, Lakhwinder Kaur (RW1) has stated that the tenant did not make any addition and alteration in the tenanted premises, her statement finds corroboration from the statement of the tenant in this context. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the landlady has miserably failed to prove this ground of ejectment as well. Hence, to me, the Courts below have decided the matter in right perspective and there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. Therefore, the same deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 17. As stated above, in the wake of appraisal and appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, both the courts below have recorded a finding of fact based on evidence that no alteration and construction has been made by the tenant and such finding cannot possibly be set aside in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Because it is now well settled proposition of law that this Court cannot legally appreciate or re-appreciate the evidence dictated by mere inclination to take a different view of the facts. Because it is now well settled proposition of law that this Court cannot legally appreciate or re-appreciate the evidence dictated by mere inclination to take a different view of the facts. It is not the province of this Court to dislodge the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below unless the same are perverse, arbitrary, absurd, not based on evidence and without jurisdiction. 18. Thus, seen from any angle, to me, the courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence brought on record and came to the correct conclusion that the tenant has not made alteration and construction materially impairing the value and utility of the building and have rightly passed the impugned orders. No other irregularity or patent illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned orders. 19. No other point worth consideration has been urged or pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 20. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the present petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.