Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1782 (PNJ)

Paramjit Singh v. Gurcharan Singh Saini and Ors

2014-12-19

R.P.NAGRATH

body2014
R.P. Nagrath, J. 1. Instant revision has been filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short to be referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 12.04.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Rent Controller on application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), permitting respondents No. 4 and 5 to be impleaded as parties in the eviction petition. The petitioner claims himself to be a non Resident Indian (NRI) and seeking eviction of respondent No. 1-tenant under Section 13-B of the Act. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were impleaded in the eviction application as they are residing in the house with respondent No. 1. Amar Singh father of the petitioner was owner of the house in question which devolved upon Kartar Kaur mother of the petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5. The petitioner claimed that Kartar Kaur executed a Will dated 15.06.1992 in favour of the petitioner in her sound disposing mind. Kartar Kaur died on 07.12.1998. On the death of Kartar Kaur, the petitioner became owner of the house in question and entry in his favour was also made in the municipal records in the year 2006. It was stated that Kartar Kaur rented out the house in question to respondent No. 1 on a monthly rent of ` 400/- in the year 1974 which was increased to ` 600/- per month with effect from 01.04.2002. Respondent No. 1 is stated to have paid arrears of rent at the aforesaid rate in June, 2006 when the petitioner visited India. 2. The eviction petition was instituted on 07.04.2011. Respondents No. 1 to 3 filed application dated 23.04.2011 for leave to contest denying existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was stated that Kartar Kaur, real sister of Piara Singh father of respondents No. 1 to 3, while leaving for Canada handed over possession of the house to the respondents. The house at that time was in a dilapidated condition. The respondents were given possession of the house as licencees with permission to raise permanent structure as the respondents were not having any house/shelter to live. The respondents raised construction of the house by spending an amount of ` 12 lacs. Kartar Kaur had also been seeing the respondents raising construction whenever she visited India. The respondents were given possession of the house as licencees with permission to raise permanent structure as the respondents were not having any house/shelter to live. The respondents raised construction of the house by spending an amount of ` 12 lacs. Kartar Kaur had also been seeing the respondents raising construction whenever she visited India. Licence of the respondents is stated to be irrevocable. 3. In the meanwhile, application was filed for respondents No. 4 and 5 through respondent No. 2 as their attorney for impleading them part}' under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Execution of the Will by Kartar Kaur was denied. It is stated that respondents No. 4 and 5 have also filed a civil suit to challenge the Will set up by the petitioner. The eviction petition is said to have been filed by the petitioner without the consent of the applicant-respondents No. 4 and 5. Since the decision of the application would definitely effect the rights of respondents No. 4 and 5, they made a prayer for being impleaded as necessary parties before the Rent Controller. The petitioner filed reply opposing the same. The learned Rent Controller vide impugned order had allowed the application impleading respondents No. 4 and 5 as parties. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the paper-book. 5. It is apparent from the observations of learned Rent Controller that respondents No. 4 and 5 filed Civil Suit No. 03 of 11.01.2012 against the petitioner, claiming inheritance to the estate of Kartar Kaur and challenging the Will dated 15.06.1992. Apparently the civil suit was filed after institution of the petition under Section 13-B of the Act. 6. I am of the view that the learned Rent Controller has allowed the application without adverting to the principle of law applicable on such matters. Respondents No. 4 and 5 claim themselves to be the co-owners of the property in question on the basis of natural inheritance and thus the Rent Controller has converted the petition for eviction to almost title suit whereas it is settled principle that complicated question of title cannot be determined by the Rent Controller. There is catena of authorities on the subject to support the contention of the petitioner. 7. There is catena of authorities on the subject to support the contention of the petitioner. 7. In Smt. Balbir Kaur and others v. M/s. Novex Dry Cleaners and another, 1982 (2) RCR (Rent) 6, the petitioner filed ejectment application of her tenants and one Harinder Kaur applied for becoming a party under Order I Rule 10 CPC, contending that she is owner of the premises and the tenants are occupying the premises under her. Learned Rent Controller allowed the application. This Court held that approach of the Rent Controller was illegal and unwarranted. Admittedly there was already an issue as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the petitioner would only succeed on proof of the said issue. A dispute between Harinder Kaur and the petitioner regarding ownership of the property cannot be decided in the ejectment application by the Rent Controller. It was further held by this Court as a settled principle that in an ejectment application under the Act, if the third party claims to be the owner of the property, it could not be made a party to proceedings as it will convert the proceedings into one for determination of title to the property in dispute, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. 8. A similar question arose before this Court in Subhash Chander and others v. Lal Baij Nath Aggarwal and others, 1993 (2) RCR (Rent) 471. This Court observed as under:-- "6...........................The case of the petitioners either is that the shop in question had been rented out to the respondents by Mohan Lal predecessor-in interest of the petitioners and, therefore, they were interested in the disposal of the petition for ejectment. Under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, a party can be impleaded as a party even against the wishes of the plaintiff if the applicant is necessary or a proper party and in the absence of whom the matter in controversy cannot be effectively disposed of. Normally, the plaintiff is the master of his suit and no person can be impleaded as party against his wishes unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the presence of the applicant is necessary for proper disposal of the suit and to resolve the controversy therein. Normally, the plaintiff is the master of his suit and no person can be impleaded as party against his wishes unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the presence of the applicant is necessary for proper disposal of the suit and to resolve the controversy therein. In the present case, if the petitioners claim that they are the landlords, they are at liberty to file a petition for ejectment and take such other proceedings against the tenants either for recovery of rent or for ejectment, as the case may be, by filing a petition either under the Act or establish their claim as owners by filing a regular suit. In the present petition, the only dispute at the most would be as to whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between Baij Nath Aggarwal and Manohar Lal etc. and consequently as to whether the respondents are liable to ejectment from the property in dispute. Rights of the petitioners will in no way be effected if they are not impleaded as parties. As noticed above, they can take appropriate proceedings where the claim be adjudicated upon effectively......." 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Shri Hans Raj v. Murari Lal and another, 1976 RCR (Rent) 64 and Kishori Lal (Landlord) v. Wazir Chand and another, 1984 (2) RCR (Rent) 335, judgments of this Court in support of his contention in which similar view was taken. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently, contended that though a co-owner can maintain a suit for eviction against tenant but it should be shown that the said eviction application was filed with the consent of other co-owners. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon FGP Ltd. v. Saleh Hooseini Doctor and another, 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 449. Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case held that co-owner can always maintain suit for eviction. It was further observed that the principles which have been affirmed in Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain, 2006(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 250 : 2006 (2) SCC 724 are that one co-owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other co-owners. It was further observed that the principles which have been affirmed in Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain, 2006(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 250 : 2006 (2) SCC 724 are that one co-owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other co-owners. In this matter, the consent of other co-owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed in spite of their disagreement. 11. On the above principle, respondents No. 1 to 3 may set up necessary plea in their defence but on that ground respondents No. 4 and 5 cannot claim themselves to be impleaded as necessary respondents and to convert the eviction petition to a title suit for which respondents No. 4 and 5 have already filed a civil suit. The existence of relationship of landlord and tenant has already been denied by respondents No. 1 to 3 in their application for leave to contest. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to Surinder Kumar Nagpal v. Rajiv Chanana and another, 2013 (1) RCR (Rent) 298, a judgment of this Court in which co-owner was allowed to be added as a party. The principle held in that case cannot support respondents' contention as there was a dispute of payment of arrears of rent in successive applications for ejectment. The present petition is not with regard to arrears of rent but a petition seeking eviction under Section 13-B of the Act. 13. In Surinder Kumar's case (supra) this Court observed as under:-- "12. In the present case, admittedly it has been noticed that relationship of landlord tenant has arisen out of the lease agreement which is dated 08.09.2003. The purchase of the property by Rajiv Chanana has been subsequently on 09.06.2005 though there was an agreement to sell in his favour prior in time on 11.06.2003. Accordingly, the relationship of the landlord and tenant has been created between the applicant and the tenant and Rajiv Chanana has purchased the property only subsequently. The tenants are being hounded by the co-owners who are both the father-in-law and the son-in-law and both are claiming to be the landlords/owners of the property and entitled to the rent in question. Accordingly, the relationship of the landlord and tenant has been created between the applicant and the tenant and Rajiv Chanana has purchased the property only subsequently. The tenants are being hounded by the co-owners who are both the father-in-law and the son-in-law and both are claiming to be the landlords/owners of the property and entitled to the rent in question. Admittedly, there are other tenants also in the property in question, reference of which has been made earlier and accordingly, the said issue is being raked up time and again as to who is the landlord and the owner. In such circumstances, the applicant-petitioner cannot be said to be unnecessary and proper party. The dispute has to be resolved as to the relationship of the landlord tenant for all times to come and, therefore, the dismissing of the application solely on the ground that there is delay is not sustainable. As has been noticed earlier, the tenant had come to this Court against the order of fixing of provisional rent and this Court, in order to ensure that rent should be paid by the tenant, directed that the deposit should be made in Court. The amount of money has to be disbursed to either of the parties and in such circumstances, it would be appropriate if the relationship factor between the tenant and the contesting alleged landlord/owners is firstly sorted out. 13. The ejectment application is on the ground of non-payment and already a direction has been made on 22.01.2008, which has been clarified by this Court on 23.04.2008 that the amount is to be deposited with the Rent Controller. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused to any of the parties even if the proceedings are delayed. Once the relationship of landlord-tenant is established, accordingly appropriate directions can be given as to whom the amount is to go to." These observations were made by this Court in the said case on its peculiar facts and would not support the contention of the respondents. In view of the above, instant revision is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller is set aside.