Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 20 (PNJ)

Swaran Kumar Sandhir v. Lakhbir Singh

2013-01-09

JASWANT SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.:- Petitioner (tenant) is in revision under Section 18-A(8) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller, SAS Nagar, Mohali whereby his application for leave to contest in an ejectment application filed by respondent(landlord) under Section 13(A) of the Act was dismissed and consequent order allowing the application for ejectment have been challenged. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that respondent(landlord) Swaran Kumar Sandhir had filed an application on the ground that demised premises is required by him as he is due to retire on 30.06.2011 from the office of Director General of Police, Punjab and thus the premises which is a flat is required for his own use and occupation. 3. Thereafter, an application for leave to contest was filed by the petitioner(tenant), whereby it was stated that the service of summons was not affected upon him and it was during the pendency of the present petition on 18.01.2011, that his advocate, who is handling other cases of the petitioner(tenant) came to know that respondent(landlord) had filed the eviction petition. Thus, it was stated that there is no service in eyes of law. Ownership of respondent(landlord) was also disputed and it was stated that respondent(landlord) is not entitled for eviction. 4. In reply to the said application for leave to contest, it was stated that the premises is required by the respondent(landlord) for his own use and he is the sole owner of the property. Rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent(landlord) to the application for leave to contest was filed. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully with their able assistance. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) has argued that the learned Rent Controller has failed to take into consideration the fact that the flat was allotted by the HOUSEFED to one Sohan Singh which was non transferable for a period of 10 years. Conveyance deed was to be executed by HOUSEFED after payment of full amount of consideration which was payable in installments. If allotment specifically bars further transfer before sale, the respondent(landlord) cannot become owner by getting any transfer letter issued from the society to the respondent. Conveyance deed was to be executed by HOUSEFED after payment of full amount of consideration which was payable in installments. If allotment specifically bars further transfer before sale, the respondent(landlord) cannot become owner by getting any transfer letter issued from the society to the respondent. It was further argued that even if it is held that Sohan Singh could sell off the property, same sold by Sohan Singh to son of respondent(landlord) namely Inder Pal Singh. Thus, it was Inder Pal Singh who had become the owner of the property and not the respondent(landlord). A mere application to the society for the purpose of membership will not confer any title upon the respondent(landlord) so as to come under the purview of the Act. Thus, it was argued that it is at the most a paper transaction done with the malafide intention to get the house vacated from the petitioner(tenant) and wrongly invoke the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent (landlord) has argued that the learned Rent Controller has rightly held that respondent(landlord) is a specified landlord qua the petitioner(tenant). It was further argued that the plea, of Sohan Singh not capable of transferring the flat in question in favour of son of respondent(landlord) was never raised before the learned Rent Controller in his application for leave to contest and thus, the argument cannot be considered at this stage. 8. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed. A perusal of the paper book would reveal that the petitioner(tenant) has challenged the ownership of the respondent(landlord) himself. Although, the Rent Controller is not to decide the question of ownership in rent applications especially while considering application for leave to contest, however, it is incumbent upon the Rent Controller to atleast prima facie satisfy itself see as to whether a landlord is owner of the property or not. Although, the Rent Controller is not to decide the question of ownership in rent applications especially while considering application for leave to contest, however, it is incumbent upon the Rent Controller to atleast prima facie satisfy itself see as to whether a landlord is owner of the property or not. In the present case, although counsel for the petitioner (tenant) has urged during the course of arguments that the property could not be transferred in name of Inder Pal Singh(son of respondent-landlord) before 10 years of the date of allotment by relying upon Annexure P-6, however, the said plea was never taken in his application for leave to contest and thus, the same cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage before this Court in revision petition under Section 18-A(8) of the Act. 9. However, the argument that the transaction between Inder Pal Singh and the respondent(landlord)is a sham transaction, appears to be prima facie correct as a perusal of the record reveals that only an application was moved to the society where the demised premises is situated for membership of respondent(landlord). Thus, in the opinion of this Court, it does not confer title upon the respondent(landlord) to become owner of the property, as ownership can fully be transferred through registered documents only. Even otherwise, the manner in which the respondent (landlord) has termed himself to be owner of property in his ejectment application shows that there are certain discrepancies which are required to be clarified and same can only be clarified/substantiated after evidence is led by respondent(landlord) so as to prove his ownership over the demised premises. Similarly, the petitioner(tenant) is entitled to lead evidence so as to prove that the respondent(landlord) has not become the owner and consequently landlord as specified under Section 13(A) of the Act. 10. There were other arguments also that were raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) so as to challenge the veracity of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller including numerous other petitions pending between Sohan Singh(alleged predecessor in interest of respondent (landlord)) and the petitioner herein for ejectment from the demised premises. 10. There were other arguments also that were raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) so as to challenge the veracity of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller including numerous other petitions pending between Sohan Singh(alleged predecessor in interest of respondent (landlord)) and the petitioner herein for ejectment from the demised premises. However, no opinion is being expressed on this point and is left for Rent Controller to decide after taking evidence, as this court finds that leave to contest has to be granted in the present case because there seems to be a prima facie case, where respondent(landlord) must prove that he is actual owner of the property and consequently, entitled to benefit under Section 13(A) of the Act. In view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 31.10.2011 is set aside. The application dated 31.01.2011(P-3 herein) seeking leave to contest of the petitioner(tenant) is allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller, SAS Nagar, Mohali on 04.02.2013. However, observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merits of the rent petition. ------------------