Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 424 (PNJ)

Puran Chand v. Kailash Chand (Through Lrs)

2009-03-03

K.KANNAN

body2009
Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. An application for ejectment filed under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 on several grounds was resisted by the tenant on the ground that he was not a tenant of premises but he himself was the owner. The Courts below rejected the plea of denial of title by the tenant by reference to the fact that the tenants father Loku Ram and another person Nirmal Dass had obtained the property on lease w.e.f. 13.01.1954 through a rent note executed between the parties on 10.03.1954. The landlords contention that after the death of one of the tenants Loku Ram, the tenancy rights were inherited by his son and he could not have lawfully denied the title of the landlord. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued denying the genuineness of the rent note. He later conceded that the findings recorded already need not be considered and that he was confining his arguments only to the legal position of the effect of the property being declared as an evacuee property and sold in open auction by the Government and a sale certificate having been issued to him by the Tehsildar (Sales). His contention was that he was not claiming under his father but in his own right by the property being delivered possession of to him under a warrant of possession. 3. The contention of the tenant falls to be adjudicated favourably by virtue of the fact that the Courts below have treated the defendants contention without reference to the specific plea that he was not claiming to be under his father but he was setting out an independent title by virtue of title paramount namely of the Government exercising its ownership as evacuee property and offering the property in auction and issuing a sale certificate in favour of the so-called tenant. Admittedly there had been no form of direct tenancy between the petitioners and the respondents nor was there any attempt made by the landlord to show that the so-called tenant had ever tendered any rent to him to create a lawful relationship of landlord and tenant. Admittedly there had been no form of direct tenancy between the petitioners and the respondents nor was there any attempt made by the landlord to show that the so-called tenant had ever tendered any rent to him to create a lawful relationship of landlord and tenant. On the other hand, the contention of the landlord was that the property had been leased through a rent note in favour of the tenants father Loku Ram along with another and after Loku Rams death, the defendant claimed the property as a tenant under his father. This particular aspect was specifically denied by the tenant and he set up title in himself stating that he had never paid rent to the petitioners and that he had never recognized the petitioners as his landlord. 4. There is perhaps a question whether the Government could treat the property as evacuee property and put it for sale and execute a sale certificate especially when the Assistant Custodian Judicial, Karnal by his order dated 24.08.1950 was purported to have declared the present landlords as the owners of the property in dispute. The issue of ejectment could not be taken up without establishing the subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondents. Such a finding was not made by the Authorities below, except to assume in spite of specific denials by the tenant that he ever claimed under his father Loku Ram, who however, was admittedly a tenant. The tenant was setting up title in himself through the Government Sale Certificate and the warrant of possession. If the relationship of landlord and tenant itself had not been established and the issue of ejectment could not have been undertaken without examining the specific contention made by the tenant that he was himself the owner of the property, the appropriate action as of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority ought to have been only to refer the parties for adjudication before a competent Civil Court. It has been held in Nand Kishore v. Ved Parkash, 1999 (1) RCR 243 in a decision rendered under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 that if a tenant established a sale deed in his favour and set up independent title, the dispute regarding title could not be a subject of decision by the Rent Controller and only a Civil Court could decide the same. 5. 5. The issue of estoppel itself binds only the landlord and tenant between whom there existed a subsisting contract of tenancy and cannot be extended to persons who are not themselves parties to a tenancy arrangement. While Loku Ram, who was the father of the alleged tenant could have been bound by the rent note from denying the title of the landlord, his son who was not the party to the rent note and who was claiming under an independent document of sale certificate issued by the Government in his favour cannot be bound the doctrine of estoppel. "Estoppel operates during the period of tenancy to deny that the landlord had no title at the beginning of the tenancy. It is limited not only in extent but also in time, that is, restricted to the title of the landlord and during its continuance." (Para 200.024 Landlord & Tenant, Vol. 3, Halsburys Laws of India, 2006) 6. The tenant for the above reason, for the non-applicability of doctrine of estoppel and in view of my finding that the case could not be adjudicated before the Rent Controller where there was a genuine dispute regarding title, tenant is bound to succeed. The civil revision is, therefore, allowed setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. No costs. Petition allowed.