Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 542 (PNJ)

Sukhdev Singh v. Sudershan Sewa Trust

2013-04-29

JASWANT SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT : - JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Applicants are in revision against the order dated 23.02.2011 (P-1) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar whereby their application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for framing of additional issues has been dismissed and also another order of even date whereby their application Under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for being impleaded as assignees of landlord who is respondent no.1 in the present petition has been dismissed. In brief, facts of the case are that respondent no.1 filed an ejectment application against the respondent no.2 who has since died and represented by his Lrs as well as against respondent no.3. In the said eviction application, the applicants moved an application under order 22 Rule 10 CPC as well as application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for being substituted as landlord instead of respondent no.1 and consequently for framing additional issues(Annexure P-6 colly). Through the said applications it was averred by the applicants that they had purchased the property in question vide two sale deeds dated 2.9.2008 for valuable consideration and mutation have also been sanctioned by the Revenue Authorities. It was stated that the said property was bought from one Usha Bhatia who is daughter of Parshottam Dass Kumar. This Usha Bhatia had inherited property from Parshottam Dass Kumar through a legal and valid Will dated 12.06.2000 and thus after the death of Parshottam Dass Kumar on 27.12.2002, Usha Bhatia became the owner of the demised premises hence, it was stated that it is through Usha Bhatia that the property was bought and consequently for all intents and purposes it is the applicants who have become the owners of the property in question. Upon notice, respondent no.1 i.e. Sudershan Sewa Trust contested the application by stating that the tenants have admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and the scope for determination in the ejectment application is only for determining the relationship and consequently pass the order as per the provisions of the Act. It was further stated that Parshottam Dass Kumar had already gifted the land in question through a registered gift deed dated 27.11.1969 and thus no Will could have been executed in favour of Usha Bhatia. Hence it was stated that the consequent sale deed if any was also of no value in the eyes of law. It was further stated that Parshottam Dass Kumar had already gifted the land in question through a registered gift deed dated 27.11.1969 and thus no Will could have been executed in favour of Usha Bhatia. Hence it was stated that the consequent sale deed if any was also of no value in the eyes of law. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Rent Controller dismissed both the applications through two separate orders of even date. Aggrieved against the same, present revision has been filed challenging both the orders. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties and have gone through the case file carefully with their able assistance. Learned Counsel for the petitioners(applicants) has argued that the learned Rent Controller has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioners are the owners of the property in question after buying from Smt. Usha Bhatia and even the respondent nos.2 & 3/tenants had attorned in favour of the present petitioners, who had paid Rs.51,000/-as rent for the months of August, September and October 2009 at the rate of Rs.17,000/-per month. Thus, it was argued that the petitioners are necessary and appropriate party to render the effective and complete adjudication of the aforesaid eviction petition. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 has vehemently contended that the orders passed by the Rent Controller is valid and the same requires no interference especially when the scope of inquiry under the Rent Act is only to the extent as to whether their exists a relationship of landlord and tenant amongst the parties and if a tenant admits the relationship, then the court under the Rent Act has to only decide as to whether any ground as envisaged under Section 13 of the Act is made out or not. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that respondent nos.2 & 3/tenants had categorically admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant in the eviction petition preferred by respondent no.1-trust. It is not in dispute that respondent nos.2 & 3/tenants had categorically admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant in the eviction petition preferred by respondent no.1-trust. It is also not in dispute that the present eviction application is pending adjudication for the last 14 years and there is a constant litigation which is simultaneously being pursued by the applicants against a private person who is allegedly the chairman of respondent no.1-trust. In the said suit, declaration has been sought that the applicants/petitioners herein are the owners of the property in question on the basis of sale deeds dated 2.9.2008. Thus it becomes crystal clear that the parties are already litigating amongst themselves for the decision qua ownership of demised premises. In such a situation, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Rent Controller had rightly dismissed the applications by holding that the Rent Controller has to confine himself to decide the matters which falls within the purview of the Rent Act and it cannot go beyond its jurisdiction while exercising the powers of a Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller was further justified in holding that the applicants have a separate recourse to the remedies available to them in accordance with the provisions of law on the basis of the sale deeds relied upon by them. Hence, no merit is there in the present revision petition, as no illegality can be found in the impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and the same are hereby affirmed. However, it is made clear that any observation made herein above shall not in any way be construed to affect the decision of any other case pending between the parties. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition the same is hereby dismissed.