Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1540 (PNJ)

Satish Bahadur Soul v. Surinder Singh @ Pappu

2012-10-30

AJAY TEWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J.(Oral) - C.M. No.22228-CII of 2012 For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed. C.R. Nos.4394 of 2006 and 3161 of 2006 are fixed for hearing for today i.e. 30.10.2012. C.R. Nos.4394 & 3161 of 2006 (O&M) 2. These two petitions have been filed against an order of the learned Rent Controller in a petition under Section 13-A of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 filed by Satish Bahadur Soul against Surinder Singh. 3. On the last date, I had put to learned counsel for the tenant-Surinder Singh on an offer made by learned counsel for the landlord-Satish Bahadur Soul whether he would vacate the premises within any reasonable time since he has been staying there for almost two decades. Today learned counsel for the tenant-Surinder Singh has stated that the aforesaid tenant has already filed a civil suit challenging the identity of the property and also the sale deed of 1947 executed in favour of the father of Satish Bahadur Soul. 4. Learned counsel for the landlord-Satish Bahadur Soul has argued that this is an entirely new plea which was never taken in the eviction petition. Any how it is not for this Court to go into this question. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Rent Controller held that Satish Bahadur Soul had not been able to prove that he had become the owner of the property in dispute since the memorandum of partition on which reliance was placed was not registered. Civil Revision No.4394 of 2006 was filed against these findings. The learned Rent Controller however went further and ordered that Surinder Singh would be liable to pay all the arrears of rent failing which he would be evicted. Civil Revision No.3161 of 2006 has been filed against that order. 6. As regards the plea of ownership of the landlord, learned counsel for the landlord-Satish Bahadur Soul has argued that the main plea taken by Surinder Singh was that he was in adverse possession of the property in dispute and that this plea itself negated any claim made by him that Satish Bahadur Soul was not the owner. 6. As regards the plea of ownership of the landlord, learned counsel for the landlord-Satish Bahadur Soul has argued that the main plea taken by Surinder Singh was that he was in adverse possession of the property in dispute and that this plea itself negated any claim made by him that Satish Bahadur Soul was not the owner. Learned counsel for the tenant-Surinder Singh has however argued that the memorandum of partition was merely a ploy because actually the property in dispute had fallen to the share of Jang Bahadur and since he had been dealing with the property throughout and it was only to take the benefit of Section 13-A of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act that this fraudulent memorandum of partition was prepared. It is noteworthy to mention here that Jang Bahadur had never raised any dispute with regard to the title of this property and nor did he corroborate this claim of Surinder Singh when he appeared as a witness. 7. Learned counsel for the landlord-Satish Bahadur Soul has further argued that a separate property had fallen to the share of Jang Bahadur and the same was got vacated by him also under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and in this regard a perusal of the order of the Court passed in C.R. No.5225 of 2010 decided on 19.08.2010 titled as Laxmi Devi vs. Jang Bahadur shows the same. 8. Learned counsel for the tenant-Surinder Singh has argued that the mere decision of the said revision would not tantamount to prove the memorandum of partition and the ownership of Satish Bahadur Soul. 9. In my considered opinion, once Surinder Singh has taken up the plea of adverse possession against Satish Bahadur Soul it would go a long way in proving the claim regarding ownership. Secondly, it is undisputed that the property was owned by the father of Satish Bahadur Soul. The only dispute is whether it fell to the share of Satish Bahadur Soul or Jang Bahadur. Once Jang Bahadur had himself denied his ownership in the property in dispute, in the absence of any other proof to the contrary it would be hard to hold that the property in dispute does not vest in Satish Bahadur Soul. The only dispute is whether it fell to the share of Satish Bahadur Soul or Jang Bahadur. Once Jang Bahadur had himself denied his ownership in the property in dispute, in the absence of any other proof to the contrary it would be hard to hold that the property in dispute does not vest in Satish Bahadur Soul. As regards the plea of adverse possession, the learned Rent Controller has found that the plea of Surinder Singh that he had occupied the premises in the year 1978 has not been established since all the documents which he had placed on file to show his rights in the property was of after 1994 except for voters list of the year 1983 which shows that Surinder Singh was residing in the demised premises. The learned Rent Controller had however also noticed that in the subsequent voters list of 1988 he was shown to be residing in the different place and had therefore disbelieved the plea that he had been in possession of the premises since the year 1978. I find no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Rent Controller. Once I have accepted that Surinder Singh was inducted in the premises in 1994 the plea of adverse possession would not be available to him for the simple reason that the instant petition was filed in the year 2003. Resultantly, it has to be held that Satish Bahadur Soul was the owner of the premises and is entitled to evict the tenant-Surinder Singh under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 10. As regards civil revision bearing C.R. No.3161 of 2006 the following order was passed on 30.05.2006:- “Notice of motion for 11.09.2006. Records be sent for. Meanwhile, subject to the deposit of 50% of the arrears of rent as directed by the Rent Controller within one month from today by the petitioner, his dispossession shall remain stayed, subject, however, to the further condition that he shall deposit the remaining arrears of rent on or before 31.08.2006 and in the event of his failure, the conditional stay order shall stand automatically vacated. The aforesaid conditional interim order is being passed in the light of the fact that the petitioner by denying the title of his own landlord, claims himself to be owner of the subject property by way of adverse possession.” 11. The aforesaid conditional interim order is being passed in the light of the fact that the petitioner by denying the title of his own landlord, claims himself to be owner of the subject property by way of adverse possession.” 11. Thereafter on 09.01.2007 the following order was passed:- “Submits that the respondent had filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner under Section 13-A claiming himself to be a specific landlord on the ground of personal necessity. Further submits that it was held by the Rent Controller that the respondent is not a specific landlord and the ground for bona fide requirement was not made out. However, ejectment order has been passed against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent which does not fall within the scope of Section 13-A of the Rent Act. Admitted. To be heard within three months. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to deposit all the arrears of rent in the trial Court and shall go on depositing rent for the future period as well.” 12. It is not disputed that thereafter Surinder Singh has continued to pay the rent of the premises. In view of these two orders and in view of the fact that Surinder Singh has continued to pay the rent, in my considered opinion, the question raised in the said revision petition need not be answered. 13. Consequently, the civil revision bearing C.R. No.4394 of 2006 is allowed and the civil revision bearing C.R. No.3161 of 2006 is dismissed. Normally, even while allowing the eviction petition the Court does grant time so as to enable the tenant to make some alternative arrangements but in view of the conduct of the tenant, I am constrained not to grant any time to the tenant-Surinder Singh in the present case.