Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 884 (PNJ)

Pawan Kumar Bansal v. Gaurav Garg

2010-02-16

S.D.ANAND

body2010
Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1 Facts in the first instance -- House No. 616, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh one kanal area accommodation) was owned by Shri Mool Chand Malhotra. On his death, it came to be owned by his two sons namely Anil Malhotra and Ravinder Malhotra, in equal shares. Anil Malhotra was in occupation of the ground floor of the house excluding the Garage; whereas Ravinder Malhotra was in possession of the first floor and also the garage located on the ground floor of the house. Ravinder Malhotra sold the portion under his occupation to respondent Gaurav Garg (herein after referred to as -the landlord-), vide registered sale deed dated 10.8.1999. The other copurchasers in the transaction were parents of the landlord. With the purchase of the portion aforementioned, the respondent and his parents became owners of the purchased part of the building aforementioned. 2 The landlord filed an ejectment plea against the tenant (hereinafter referred to as -the petitioner-) on an averment of personal necessity and non-payment of rent. The averment made by the landlord, in the context, was that he is a recently married practising Advocate; that his father/co-owner is also a practising Advocate and that the later (father of the landlord) wants to settle his son independently in the premises aforementioned which would be used for residential and also office purpose. It was the further averment that the parents of the petitioner are themselves putting up in a rented accommodation which is insufficient to accommodate their recently married son and a domestic help. Yet another averment in the relevant behalf, was that the petitioner and his wife own a 2-1/2 storied 7-1/2 marla house (bearing House No. 3145, Sector 40, Chandigarh) and they can shift to that house wherein the accommodation available is sufficient for their use. 3 Insofar as the non-payment of rent is concerned, it is apparent from the record that the petitioner is not proved to have paid rent for the indicated period on account of denial of relationship. 4 Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the moment it was held by the learned Rent Controller that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it was incumbent upon him to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to pay up the arrears of rent. 4 Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the moment it was held by the learned Rent Controller that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it was incumbent upon him to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to pay up the arrears of rent. The plea was resisted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent who argued that grant of an adjournment would not be warranted if there was denial of relationship of landlord-tenant interese. 5 The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be out rightly negatived in view of the law laid down by this Court in Yashpal Singla v. Vijay Kumar 2004(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 718-2004(2) Civ. C.C. 603 and Jagdish Singh v. Mohan Lai, 2004(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 114 - 2004(3) Civ. C.C. 134. In both the cases aforementioned, the tenant had denied the existence of relationship of landlord-tenant, however, the Rent Controller recorded a finding in favour of the landlord on point of existence of relationship. It was under those circumstances that this court held that there was no justification for grant of an opportunity to tenant to deposit the arrears of rent. 6 It was, then, argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ejectment petition filed by the respondent-co-owner was not maintainable in respect of the tenanted premises in the absence of evidence that there had been any partition of the entire property between co-owners and the tenanted portion had fallen to the share of the respondent. Reliance, in support of the view, was placed upon Messrs. Karta Ra, Rameshwar Dass v. Ram Bilas and others, 2006(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 23 - 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 643- (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 125. 7 The plea was resisted on behalf of the respondent by averring to the contrary. In support of the averment that a petition was indeed maintainable at the instance of co-owner. Reliance was placed upon Pal Singh v. Surinder Singh 1989(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 331, M/s. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & others v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by Lrs. Smt. SavitriAgarwalla 2004(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 686 - 2004(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 154 - 2004 (1) Civil Court Cases 412 and Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain, 2006(2) Civil Court Cases, 01. In all these rulings rendered by the Apex Court in Pal Singh, M/s. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & others v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by Lrs. Smt. SavitriAgarwalla 2004(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 686 - 2004(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 154 - 2004 (1) Civil Court Cases 412 and Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain, 2006(2) Civil Court Cases, 01. In all these rulings rendered by the Apex Court in Pal Singh, M/s. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and Mohinder Parshad Jain-s cases (supra), the Apex Court categorically upheld the maintainability of eviction action by one of the co- owners provided, ofcourse, that the other co-owner did not object to it. There is nothing on the file to indicate that the other co-owner ever objected to the maintainability of the ejectment action under challenge. 8 Insofar as the judgment in Messrs. Karta Ra, Rameshwar Dass-s case (supra) is concerned, it is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. That was a case filed by one co-sharer against the other for partition of the property. The Apex Court held therein that if a tenant is impleaded as a party, he can object to the claim for partition if it is shown that the same was not bona fide and made with an oblique motive to overcome the rigours of rent control laws which protect the eviction of tenant except on the grounds set out in the relevant statute. 9 I have, thus, no hesitation in negativing the plea aforementioned raised on behalf of the petitioner. 10 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, then, proceeded to argue that the ejectment action is malafide as the petitioner has been made to face a number of ejectment applications one after the other, all of which came to be negatived by the Court. 11 The plea raised, though apparently alluring, is proved to be farcical. The respondent and his parents made the purchase of tenanted premises, vide registered sale deed dated 10.8.1999. The quoted litigation had been decided prior to the purchase of tenanted premises by the respondent and his parents. The respondent cannot be said to be bound by the fact of withdrawal (decision of earlier litigation particularly when those were based upon a plea of non- payment of rent. Those petitions came to be dismissed as withdrawn the moment claimed amount of rent was paid. The respondent cannot be said to be bound by the fact of withdrawal (decision of earlier litigation particularly when those were based upon a plea of non- payment of rent. Those petitions came to be dismissed as withdrawn the moment claimed amount of rent was paid. Though it is indeed apparent from a perusal of the record that predecessor-in-interest of the respondent did raise a plea of change of user as well which came to be rejected in one of the rent litigation, that finding cannot be said to bind the respondent as the purchase of the tenanted premises came about at a subsequent point of time. Likewise, the findings recorded by the. Civil Court, in a suit for injunction filed by the predecessor- in-interest of the respondent against the petitioner, also cannot be said to be binding upon the respondent. 12 Insofar as the aspect of personal necessity is concerned, there is plenty of material obtaining on the file to prove that respondent is a practising Advocate and is also recently married. There is no evidence to the contrary. There is nothing unnatural if the respondent wants to raise a claim for being in occupation of the tenanted premises in his own right. There is equally nothing unnatural on the part of the parents of the landlord to settle him independently. The finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority on point of personal necessity could not be faulted on any valid score. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned.