Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 269 (PNJ)

Om Kumar Jain v. Raj Kumar Saini

2009-02-03

K.KANNAN

body2009
Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The petition for eviction sought on the ground of personal requirement of the landlord to carry on the building work of demolition of the demised premises on the ground that it had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation was upheld by the Rent Controller. The order of ejectment was reversed by the Appellate Authority and consequently, the landlord is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2. At the threshold the tenant sought to contend that he had taken the property on rent only from Smt. Anjana Devi and the landlord who claimed to be a purchaser had never informed him about the so-called purchase. His further contention was that the sale in his favour itself was sham. The Rent Controller rejected such a contention by reference to rent receipts, which the tenant himself had filed and exhibited as R-42 to R-53, which contained the signatures of the landlord. The Rent Controller also reasoned that the sale itself cannot be questioned by the tenant. He upheld the contention of the landlord of his personal requirement, who, as per the averments made in the petition, contended that he was an Ex-Army officer and that he had done his degree in law and wanted to use the premises for establishing his office. On the other ground urged by the landlord of demolition of the building for construction since it had become unsafe for human habitation, the Rent Controller adverted to the unchallenged version of the landlord that the building was old and decrepit and the access to the first floor which he had purchased along with the ground floor was itself possible only if a stair way made by demolition of the ground floor within the boundary of his entitlement. 3. The Appellate Authority reversed the findings by stating that the most crucial issue for adjudication was whether the sale deed in favour of the landlord was true. The very approach of the appellate Authority is erroneous in a rent control proceeding initiated by a person claiming to be a landlord, where the only issue could be whether there existed a jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The very approach of the appellate Authority is erroneous in a rent control proceeding initiated by a person claiming to be a landlord, where the only issue could be whether there existed a jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The issue of ownership itself is alien to the scheme of the Act or the definition of the "landlord" contained under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, which refers to a landlord as a person who "for the time being is entitled to receive rent in respect of any building of rented land". The approach of the Appellate Authority, therefore, that the validity of the sale deed was required to be examined and whether the petitioner had established his ownership was wholly erroneous. If we notice the fact, as found by the Rent Controller, that the tenant himself had produced the copies of receipts R-42 to R-53, which contained the signatures of the landlord, the weight of the evidence that they afford, cannot be under estimated. The tenant, by an ingenious way of escaping the consequences of the receipts, which he had himself tendered in evidence, sought to wriggle out of the consequences by stating, that his previous landlord simply handed over the receipt and he did not verify whose name was entered as the landlord. His explanation further was that the originals themselves had been retained by the landlord and he had merely photocopies of the documents. This explanation is pointed out by the counsel for the revision petitioner as patently false by referring to Ex. R-82 to 85, which were the original receipts. A rent receipt is a receipt given by a landlord to a tenant and it is inconceivable that the original could be retained by the landlord himself. In any event, the contention that the rent receipt could not be relied on to establish the tenancy is puerile when in the absence of a rent deed, the receipts offer the only possible method of establishing tenancy. The weight of evidence of such documents cannot easily be discounted by reference to the fact that they were not original documents. It is not a case of the landlord producing the documents and seeking for inference of the relationship. On the other hand, it is the evidence tendered by the tenant from which it makes clear that there existed such relationship. It is not a case of the landlord producing the documents and seeking for inference of the relationship. On the other hand, it is the evidence tendered by the tenant from which it makes clear that there existed such relationship. The lower Appellate Court has also referred to receipts PX and PY dated 17.05.1997, which were the receipts issued by the counsel for the petitioner to discredit the evidentiary value of P-42 to P-53. The reference to these documents by the lower Appellate Authority is equally untenable since the receipt was for a period subsequent to the institution of the petition which was filed on 24.05.1995 and issuance of a receipt by the counsel in Court cannot take away the effect of the evidence already available. All these receipts had issued by the landlord to the tenant for periods subsequent to his purchase on 31.05.1994 in the case of a landlord who claims under a purchase from the previous landlord, all that is necessary is whether there had been a valid attornment by express notice of either the vendor or the purchaser. Instances may also be without issuance of notice by the purchaser, the tenant may be apprised orally when the tenant could recognize such purchase by tendering rent to the purchaser. In this case, there is clear evidence that the rent was so tendered by the tenant to the landlord and he had obtained receipts signed only from the landlord who is the petitioner before the Rent Controller. The finding of the Appellate Authority that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant is clearly perverse and contrary to documentary evidence before the Court. 4. As regards the requirements of the personal need of the landlord, even the Appellate Authority found the need to be genuine and had specifically given a finding that the landlord who had retired from military service required the premises for establishing his office as an advocate. However, an order of ejectment did not follow in view of the finding by him that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant. Having regard to the concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, I uphold the claim of the landlord for ejectment on this ground. 5. However, an order of ejectment did not follow in view of the finding by him that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant. Having regard to the concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, I uphold the claim of the landlord for ejectment on this ground. 5. The only other ground urged by the landlord was the requirement for carrying out building work of demolition on account of fact that the building had become unfit for human habitation and it was dealt with from the factual situation that the landlord had purchased only the front portion of the building at the ground floor and the first floor, and access to the first floor itself was not possible to him except by providing a stair way by demolishing the construction on the ground floor, which was in the occupation of the tenant. The trial Court upheld such a contention on the ground of specific evidence of the landlord that the building was old, the walls are cracked, the ceiling was bad, which were unchallenged in the cross- examination, affording proof of the landlords plausibility of contention. The Appellate Authority also in his judgment made reference to the fact that the contention of the landlord regarding the nature of the condition of the building as well as his inability to access the first floor otherwise than providing a stair way as not having been challenged in the cross-examination but still he chose to reverse the finding on the ground that there had been no proof by evidence of an expert that the building was old. The parties could be expected to give evidence only on what is specifically challenged at the trial. If the landlords version of the old age of the construction and his imminent need for demolition goes unchallenged in the cross-examination such a person could be justified in not letting any more evidence. In the circumstances, the reasoning of the Appellate Authority that the case of requirement of the landlord for demolition should fail for want of evidence through an expert is meaningless. The finding by the Rent Controller and the inference that it made for want of cross-examination on a relevant aspect of the condition of building as spoken to by the landlord accord with parameters of legal reasoning. The reversal of such a finding by the Appellate was not justified. 6. The finding by the Rent Controller and the inference that it made for want of cross-examination on a relevant aspect of the condition of building as spoken to by the landlord accord with parameters of legal reasoning. The reversal of such a finding by the Appellate was not justified. 6. The order of the Appellate Authority in the appeal, under the circumstances, is set aside and the decision of the Rent Controller is restored. 7. The civil revision petition is allowed but there shall however be no orders as to costs. Petition allowed.