Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1240 (PNJ)

Vidya Devi v. Prem Sudesh

2013-09-16

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2013
Rakesh Garg, J. 1. This is tenants revision petition, challenging the order dated 11.1.2012 of the Rent Controller, Mukerian, whereby she has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises in an ejectment petition filed under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short, "the Act"), accepting the bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlady who had claimed eviction being a specified landlady. Suffice is to say that the respondent-landlady filed an instant ejectment petition against the petitioner, claiming that she was the owner of the property in dispute which is a residential house. She is to retire from service on 30.11.2006 and was entitled to the benefits of Section 13A of the Act. Husband of the petitioner is a retired Professor without pension and is residing at Mukerian in a rented accommodation and thus, the petitioner intends to reside in the house in dispute after her retirement and the respondent-landlady is entitled to the possession of the residential building in dispute. Hence the petition. 2. Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant filed her reply, admitting that the respondent was owner of the house in dispute. The relationship of landlord and tenant was also admitted. However, the other averments with regard to need of the respondent-landlord and that she was specified landlord were denied. 3. On the basis of the averments made and considering the evidence on record, following issues were framed:- "1) Whether the petition is specified landlord and respondent is tenant under the petitioner at the rate of ` 25/- per month as alleged? OPP. 2) Whether the house in dispute is required by the petitioner for her personal use and occupation? OPP. 3) Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the house in dispute? OPP. 4) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR. 5) Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR. 6) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR. 7) Whether affidavit filed by the petitioner is defective? OPR. 8) Relief?" 4. The respondent-landlady placed on record a certificate Ex. P3, showing that she was to retire from service of the State of Himachal Pradesh on 30.11.2006. OPR. 6) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR. 7) Whether affidavit filed by the petitioner is defective? OPR. 8) Relief?" 4. The respondent-landlady placed on record a certificate Ex. P3, showing that she was to retire from service of the State of Himachal Pradesh on 30.11.2006. However, an argument was raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that the said certificate has not been issued by an authority who is competent to remove the respondent-landlady from the service as per the requirements of Section 13A of the Act and therefore, the petition filed on behalf of the respondent-landlady cannot succeed. It was further the case of the petitioner-tenant that the respondent-landlady has not stepped into the witness box to prove her bona fide requirement of the property in dispute and her husband could not have deposed being her attorney, as the personal need of the respondent-landlady could have been proved by her by stepping into the witness box and an attorney was not competent to make a statement on her behalf. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that admittedly, the respondent-wife was sharing the residential accommodation with her husband and therefore, she being in possession of the suitable accommodation, was not entitled to evict the petitioner. However, the argument raised did not find favour with the Rent Controller and the petition was dismissed. 5. Before this Court, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the approach adopted by the Rent Controller, which is wholly erroneous and thus, the ejectment petition was liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as the pleadings and the documents placed on record with the help of the counsel for the petitioner. 7. Without going into the fact as to whether the respondent-landlady has placed on record a valid certificate from a competent authority to establish the factum of her retirement on 30.11.2006, suffice is to say that in her own statement, the petitioner-tenant has admitted that the respondent-landlady has retired on 30.11.2006. In view of the aforesaid admitted fact, this Court is of the view that there was no need to further place on record any certificate of the competent authority, as it is well established that the admitted facts need not be proved. 8. In view of the aforesaid admitted fact, this Court is of the view that there was no need to further place on record any certificate of the competent authority, as it is well established that the admitted facts need not be proved. 8. So far as the second argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute that the plaintiff has to step into the witness box to prove his/her case, especially where the facts are to his personal knowledge. However, the argument is also liable to be rejected keeping in view the fact that the attorney who stepped into the witness box to support the case of the respondent-landlady, was none else but her husband and it could not be disputed that he was having the personal knowledge of the requirement of the respondent-landlady. At this stage, it may be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the judgment in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd. 2005(1) RCR (Civil) 240, in Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs v. Hartar Singh Sangha : 2011(1) RCR (Civil) 189 has culled out certain exceptions to the aforesaid rule, holding that even an attorney who is closely related to the landlord/landlady, is competent to depose on behalf of such landlord/landlady with regard to his personal bone fide need. While culling out the aforesaid exception, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly mentioned the relationship of husband and wife, as one such exception. Even this Court after considering a catena of judgments on the subject, including the judgment in the case of M/s. Metro Tyres Limited v. Sushil Kumar and another , (2012) 1 RCR (Rent) 20 has held as under:- From the resume of the aforesaid and specially the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs (supra), it is evident that even an attorney in the case of husband and wife can depose on behalf of the other. In this regard, there is a Single Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Satyanarayan, Spun Pipe Company v. N. Padmavathi, : 2003(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 388 in which it has been held that as per Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and the husband or wife of any party to the suit, shall be competent witnesses. In case of non-appearance of landlady, her husband who had knowledge of the facts can depose in the Court and the non-appearance of his wife cannot be faulted with. 9. Even this Court had an occasion to consider a similar question in Rajni Arora & ors. v. Smt. Krishna Devi, : 2012(1) RCR (Rent) 208, wherein it has been held that the husband is competent to depose on behalf of the landlady-wife to prove her need. In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in the aforesaid argument also. 10. This brings us to the last argument raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the respondent-landlady was already sharing the accommodation with her husband and therefore, having already a suitable accommodation, her need cannot be said to be bona fide. 11. The argument raised again is liable to be rejected simply on the ground that the house of the husband of the respondent cannot be considered to be her own house and she has prerogative to get possession of her house in her own right. 12. This view finds support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Niranjan Dass Sood v. Smt. Vidya Wati 1979(1) Rent Control Reporter 547. 13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in this revision petition. 14. No other argument has been raised. Dismissed.