Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 354 (PNJ)

Lata Dewan v. Kanta Rani

2009-02-18

K.KANNAN

body2009
Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The batch of petitions address the issue of eviction in relation to the same premises against the same tenant. The petitions themselves relate to successive periods when the landlord had been complaining that the tenant was in arrears of rent, taking each opportunity constituting a fresh cause of action. The first of the proceedings started with the application filed at the instance of the petitioner Kanta Rani, wife of Jugal Kishore seeking for ejectment of the respondent-tenant M.R. Dewan. On his death, his legal representatives viz his wife, son and daughter had been impleaded. The order of ejectment followed in all the petitions which was challenged in appeals before the Appellate Authority who affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. Among the grounds urged by the landlord, one of the grounds was non-payment of rent by the tenant at Rs. 1150/- per month. The Rent Controller recorded a finding that the rate of rent was only Rs. 350/- and there was no proof that the rent had actually been raised by the original landlord from Rs. 350/- to Rs. 1150/-. The landlord Kanta Rani had therefore, filed cross appeals. As regards the finding relating to the quantum of rent, the cross appeals were also dismissed affirming the decision of the Rent Controller. 2. To a just rendering of the cases, some more facts are necessary. The original landlord was one Om Parkash. He had shifted out of India to Malaysia constituting Jugal Kishore as his Power of Attorney. Jugal Kishore had a partner in business by name Dalip. Jugal Kishore and Dalip were engaged in the business of real estate. The premises had been rented out to the tenant M.R. Dewan and held by him as tenant since 1981. The property was purported to have been sold in favour of the petitioner by Om Parkash on 17.5.1996 and after the same the tenant became liable to pay rent to the petitioner. After the purchase the petitioner who had been residing in rental premises had sought for eviction on the ground of her personal requirement. The landlord complained that the tenant was not even permitting her to make inspection of the premises and had become a source of nuisance to her. The petition was filed seeking for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement and on the ground of non-payment of rent. 3. The landlord complained that the tenant was not even permitting her to make inspection of the premises and had become a source of nuisance to her. The petition was filed seeking for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement and on the ground of non-payment of rent. 3. The tenant disputed the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and contended that it was an illegal document. First it was his contention that Jugal Kishore had no authority to execute the sale deed on behalf of Om Parkash and that the alleged sale deed was not a legal document. He denied the Power of Attorney itself had been brought out through an invalid instrument. The tenants further contention was that he had been in possession of the property for more than 20 years and the purchase had been made belatedly with an ulterior motive knowing fully that she was purchasing litigation. The tenant himself had earlier filed a suit against the landlord Om Parkash and petitioners husband Jugal Kishore before a Civil Court seeking for injunction restraining the defendants therein in any manner disturbing his possession except by due process of law. There had been other general denials of the contentions raised by the landlord that she was not in possession of any other property within the urban limits of Jalandhar where the property was situated and there were no acts of nuisance actionable at the instance of the landlord to secure eviction. 4. Since the tenant was denying the status of the petitioner and his landlord, the lynchpin upon which the claim for ejectment of the petitioner had been made, the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority directed their addition to establishing the status of petitioner as the owner under the sale deed and whether she could claim the status as landlord to obtain ejectment. The status of the respondent as a tenant under Om Parkash itself was not denied but the denial was only the genuineness of the claim of the landlord to seek for ejectment on the basis of the deed of purchase in her favour. The ejectment claim was made on the contention of the landlord that the tenant had stopped payment of rent from 1.6.1991 to 30.6.1996 and from thence when the petitions had been pending. 5. The ejectment claim was made on the contention of the landlord that the tenant had stopped payment of rent from 1.6.1991 to 30.6.1996 and from thence when the petitions had been pending. 5. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority reasoned that the Power of Attorney in favour of Jugal Kishore dated 13.5.1991 was a registered instrument and hence there was a presumption in favour of its genuineness. The tenant denied the case as projected by the landlord that, her predecessor Om Parkash had died and that the sale had been instituted through the Power of Attorney in her favour prior to his death. The tenant pleaded that Om Parkash had died even prior to the alleged sale and consequently the sale deed executed through the Power of Attorney itself was invalid. The authorities below therefore found that the tenant himself was not competent to deny the sale deed and it was a matter between the legal representatives of Om Parkash and the landlord, if it should ultimately transpire that the sale had been executed by the Power of Attorney of Om Parkash subsequent to his death. If landlord Om Parkash was originally entitled to receive the rent the only question was whether the Power of Attorney was equally competent to receive the rent and the fact that there had been a sale ultimately in favour of the petitioner would make the tenant liable to pay the rent to the purchaser also. If he failed to pay the rent to the purchaser, the non-payment was certainly actionable. 6. The learned Sr. counsel appearing for the tenant put up his contention at the foremost that there was no proof of the actual date of death of Om Parkash and the validity of the sale deed and the competence of Power of Attorney to execute the sale in favour of the petitioner had not been established at all. The learned Sr. Counsel contended that at the previous hearing on 18.12.2008 the counsel for the landlord had offered to produce the death certificate of Om Parkash, but the learned Sr. The learned Sr. Counsel contended that at the previous hearing on 18.12.2008 the counsel for the landlord had offered to produce the death certificate of Om Parkash, but the learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord denied that there was no such offer made and having regard to the fact that there were no definite details available on the record of the Court, the respective counsel were directed to address their arguments on the basis of the record already available and if there was any need for the production of details of death of Om Parkash, the same would be considered at the time of the final disposal of the case. 7. The learned Sr. counsel for the tenant brought to my attention the fact that the tenant had moved an application seeking for directions to the petitioner to produce on record the original Power of Attorney dated 13.5.1991 to enable the respondent to get the signatures of Om Parkash on the said document to be compared with the signatures of Om Parkash appearing on other documents executed by him. This application had been filed by verification of the respondent on 30.1.2001. The effort on behalf of the tenant was to show that the landlord could not prosecute the application without even establishing the Power of Attorney in Court. In the same application filed by the tenant he had also alleged that Om Parkash had died in Malaysia and that taking advantage of the death, the present petitioner and her husband had forged the Power of Attorney and brought up a sale deed qua the property in question and filed an ejectment petition. 8. The Rent Controller passed an order on 27.1.2001 disposing of the petitions by pointing out that the tenant himself had admitted that the husband of the petitioner had been acting as Power of Attorney of Om Parkash, when the latter had filed earlier an ejectment petition and claimed arrears of rent. The tenant M.R. Dewan had never alleged earlier that the Power of Attorney was false and only after the evidence of the petitioners side had been closed and posted for evidence of the respondent and a last opportunity was given on 17.2.2001, instead of adducing evidence, the respondent had filed the application at the belated stage. The tenant M.R. Dewan had never alleged earlier that the Power of Attorney was false and only after the evidence of the petitioners side had been closed and posted for evidence of the respondent and a last opportunity was given on 17.2.2001, instead of adducing evidence, the respondent had filed the application at the belated stage. The Rent Controller observed that there was no occasion for comparing the signatures of Om Parkash with the signatures on other documents. The Rent Controller further observed that the certified copy of the alleged Power of Attorney had been placed in Court and the same was duly proved through the examination of the Clerk at the Sub Judges office. The Court found that the application was without merit and the same was only moved to delay the proceedings. The learned Senior counsel urged against the correctness of the decision of the Rent Controller in the interlocutory application and sought for an adjudication regarding the date of death of Om Parkash, the validity of the Power of Attorney beyond the life of Om Parkash and consequently the validity of the alleged sale by him in favour of the petitioner brought about by the Power of Attorney acting as such on behalf of Om Parkash. According to him, the proper course would be to remand the matters before the Rent Controller for adjudication regarding the validity of the Power of Attorney and the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner. 9. The futility of the entire exercise, would be seen if, as pointed out by the learned Sr. Counsel for the landlord, examine the fact that the husband of the petitioner had been acting as Power of Attorney and it was always admitted by the tenant. Even in the suit filed by the tenant M.R. Dewan before the Civil Court against Om Parkash and husband of the petitioner had been arrayed as parties and the latter had been described as a Power of Attorney for Om Parkash. In that plaint the tenant had stated in paragraph 3 that Om Parkash was intending to sell the property to Jugal Kishore or to some other person through him and both of them had been representing the tenant to remove the household articles from the property in question within a weeks time. In that plaint the tenant had stated in paragraph 3 that Om Parkash was intending to sell the property to Jugal Kishore or to some other person through him and both of them had been representing the tenant to remove the household articles from the property in question within a weeks time. The learned counsel further pointed out that sale by Om Parkash itself had never been denied at all by the tenant so long as he was alive. Even during the cross-examination of the petitioner in Court or during the examination of all the witnesses, the validity of the sale deeds and the Power of Attorney had never been impeached. The evidence had been closed on the side of the landlord on 29.9.1999 and until 31.1.2001 there was no application moved seeking for comparison of signatures of Om Parkash and for impeaching the genuineness of the Power of Attorney. Learned Senior counsel for the landlord also points out that Kanta Rani had given evidence that "Om Parkash, the owner of the property was alive when sale deed Ex. P3 was executed". This portion of the evidence of the petitioner that the sale had been brought out in her favour during the life time of Om Parkash was never challenged nor was there any suggestion that the sale deed had been brought out subsequent to the death of Om Parkash. He also pointed out to the evidence of the tenant when she examined herself after the death of her husband. At page 169 of the file the evidence of the tenant as follows : "My husband took the property in question on rent from Om Parkash at Rs. 325/- per month. We are tenants for the last about 25 years. Jugal Kishore was the husband of the petitioner Kanta Rani and he deals with the business property (a) and property dealer. Since the husband of the petitioner was a property dealer and so this property was also purchased by the husband of the petitioner. 10. Having admitted in her evidence that the petitioner had purchased the property and further no ground of appeal had even been taken raising the issue of title, the tenant could not be heard to plead on the genuineness of the sale deed or a suspicion created that the sale deed had been made after the death of Om Parkash. 10. Having admitted in her evidence that the petitioner had purchased the property and further no ground of appeal had even been taken raising the issue of title, the tenant could not be heard to plead on the genuineness of the sale deed or a suspicion created that the sale deed had been made after the death of Om Parkash. The status of the husband of the petitioner as a lawfully constituted Power of Attorney is also seen from the fact that in the written statement filed by the respondent, it has been stated in paragraph 3 "that in an earlier ejectment application No. 20 of 1996 the husband of the petitioner as Power of Attorney of Om Parkash filed an ejectment application and claims arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.6.1991 at the rate of Rs. 11 per month." 11. The pleadings regarding the alleged invalidity of the Power of Attorney and the sale deed themselves have come too late in the proceedings to cast a cloud on the entitlement of the landlord to obtain eviction when, there existed no tenable objections to address on the genuineness of the need of the landlord. The case must be viewed in the light of the landlord contending that she was residing in a rented premises and there were already proceedings against her in eviction at the instance of her landlord. In a case where the landlord is faced to the prospect of immediate eviction there cannot be a greater need and better proof of the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord. The learned Senior counsel for the landlord referred to several decisions of this Court which have outlined the bona fides of the need in instances where the landlord himself faced the imminent eviction. The decision in Mrs. Meena Sri Sagar v. M/s Traders, 1996(2) RCR(Rent) 233 : 1996(5) SCC 344, states out the law regarding the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord underscores the principle that the landlord was the best judge of his residential requirements and if the landlord desires beneficial enjoyment of his own property that when the property occupied by him as tenant or any other basis was either insecure or inconvenient, it was not for the Court to dictate to him to continue to occupy such premises. This decision assumes significance if he considers that the landlord was herself a tenant in some other premises who faced the prospects of eviction. This Court had in the decision of Virender v. Mohan, reported in 1998(1) RLR 467 that the sale or a transfer had been made by the original landlord and the transferee had become landlord, a tenant shall not be permitted to challenge the validity in the ejectment proceedings. Such a challenge could be made only in a regular civil suit. This squarely answers the attempt made by the tenant to challenge the sale deeds to evade the consequences of eviction proceedings initiated at the instance of the transferee of the admitted landlord Om Parkash. 12. The orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority are well reasoned and unassailable. The revision petitions have no merit and they are dismissed with costs. The costs of the revision petition in each case is assessed at Rs. 2500/- in favour of the landlord. Petitions dismissed.