Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 810 (PNJ)

Ravi Shankar v. Satpal

2017-03-23

G.S.SANDHAWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral):-The present revision petition, filed by the petitioner-landlord, is under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, is directed against the order dated 07.12.2016, whereby the application for issuance of warrants of possession against the respondent-Satpal son of Dharambir, of the demised premises, have been kept in abeyance by the Rent Controller, Bhiwani. 2. The reasoning given by the Rent Controller is that the execution petition had been filed for compliance of the order dated 04.09.2015 whereby the said respondent was ordered to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of provisionally assessed rent on 29.07.2015. The said respondent had taken the plea that he was not the tenant and had not taken possession of the premises and that since relationship of petitioner-landlord and respondent No.2-Satpal son of Maha Singh, was yet to be decided, in such circumstances, it was held that it was not practical to execute the warrants of possession. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that on account of the fact that provisional rent had not been tendered by respondent- Satpal, son of Dharambir, therefore, he was liable to be evicted, in view of the dicta of Rakesh Wadhawan & others Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & others, 2002 (1) RCR (Rent) 514 and the Division Bench judgment in Rajan @ Raj Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar, [2012(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 544] : 2010 (2) PLR 201 . 4. The said argument is not liable to be accepted, keeping in view the facts of the present case, since eviction was sought by the present petitioner from the shop in question on the ground of arrears of rent from 01.05.2012 to 30.09.2014 @ Rs.1100/- per month and also the fact that the respondent had also sublet the premises to one Satpal son of Maha Singh, who is respondent No.2 in the eviction petition, who has, however, not been impleaded in the present revision petition and neither was also obviously impleaded in the application filed for getting warrants of possession issued. The allegations made in the eviction petition was that the said Satpal (subtenant) had been put in possession without the written consent of the landlord, apart from the fact that there was also denial of user of the shop. The allegations made in the eviction petition was that the said Satpal (subtenant) had been put in possession without the written consent of the landlord, apart from the fact that there was also denial of user of the shop. The stance of the present respondent was that the shop had been taken by respondent No.2/sub-tenant from the very beginning and he had no connection with the property. He was only a tenant in the shop opposite to the disputed shop. The sub-tenant was doing business since 2005. 5. Similarly, the sub-tenant’s plea in the written statement was that he had never taken the shop in dispute from the present petitioner but had taken it from one Sanjay, son of Om Prakash, the brother of the petitioner, in the year 2005. He was having a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the rate of rent was Rs.500/- per month. Allegations were made against the respondent that he might be in collusion with the landlord and the rent had been given till August, 2014. Thus, the relationship of landlord, as such, was disputed and that the brother was the landlord. 6. Eventually, the order of provisional assessment was made on 29.07.2015 and the rent was to be tendered by the respondent, to the tune of Rs.36,590/-. On account of non-depositing the rent, it was held that the respondent is liable to be ejected and the petitioner was given the liberty to file the execution application regarding ejectment of respondent No.1. It is pertinent to mention that issues were also framed vide order dated 04.09.2015 (Annexure P7), which are as under: “1. Whether the respondent No.2 is sub-latte as alleged by the petitioner? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the suit property on the ground mentioned in the petition? OPP 3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable?OPR 4. Relief.” 7. The said respondent filed revision petition before this Court bearing CR-7488-2015, which was withdrawn on 05.11.2015 (Annexure P9), to approach the Appellate Court. Eventually, he also withdrew the appeal on 15.01.2016 (Annexure P10). Thereafter, the petitioner filed the execution petition against the respondent but not against the sub-tenant. The respondent filed objection, taking the plea that he was not the tenant and had no concern with the shop in dispute. 8. Eventually, he also withdrew the appeal on 15.01.2016 (Annexure P10). Thereafter, the petitioner filed the execution petition against the respondent but not against the sub-tenant. The respondent filed objection, taking the plea that he was not the tenant and had no concern with the shop in dispute. 8. Thus, from the above, it would go on to show that there is an issue regarding the factum whether the respondent-tenant was in possession and liable to be ejected on the grounds mentioned in the petition. The petitioner is, thus, trying to get possession on the basis of non-payment of rent by the respondent, whereas the sub-tenant and his name sake, is in possession. The Rent Controller has rightly declined to execute the said warrants of possession of the sub-tenant. Both, the tenant and the sub-tenant are having a common name and thus, advantage, as such, is being sought to be taken by the landlord who wants summary eviction of the sub-tenant by resorting to execution at this stage. 9. In such circumstances, the argument raised that the warrants of possession have wrongly not been issued, is without any basis. The matter is yet to be decided and the issue of original landlord is yet to be crystalized inter se the parties including the sub-tenant, as to whether the petitioner or his brother, is the landlord of Satpal s/o Maha Singh. In such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity which would warrant interference, in revisional jurisdiction. Resultantly, the present revision petition stands dismissed, in limine.