Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 83 (PNJ)

Rajiv Nagpal v. Satya Wati

2018-01-10

AJAY TEWARI

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral):- This petition has been filed against the order of the RentController declining the framing of additional issues. The respondentlandladyhad filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant on theground of personal necessity. In his written statement, the petitioner hadaccepted that the respondent was his landlady. Further she had pleaded inher eviction petition that she had let out the property to the petitioner onoral tenancy about 20 years ago. To this specific averment, the petitionerhad replied to the effect that the property had in fact been let out by thefather-in-law of the respondent to him but after his death he had beenpaying rent to the respondent by account payee cheque. He further pleadedthat after the death of the father-in-law of the respondent a writtenagreement had been executed between the petitioner and the respondent. Inher replication the respondent denied the written agreement. Thereafter thecase proceeded to trial on the issue of bonafide necessity. The presentapplication was moved in which it was alleged that once the petitioner hadtaken the plea that in fact the premises had been let out to him by the fatherin-law of the respondent and once the respondent had denied the writtenagreement with her which was being set up by the petitioner, it would beimperative to frame the following issues:- “a) Whether the petitioner has rented out the shop inquestion to the tenant about 20 years back orally?OPA b) Whether petitioner has no right, title, interest in theshop in question prior to the death of Late Sh. GoharChand?OPA c) If both the above issues are not proved, what is theeffect of relationship of landlady and tenant betweenthe parties. d) Whether the petitioner inherited the shop in questionvide will dated 16.08.2003 allegedly executed by LateGohar Chand (her father-in-law) and became owner ofshop in question?OPA” 2. The Rent Controller held that these issues would not arise inview of the categoric and unequivocal acceptance of the petitioner-tenantthat the respondent was his landlady. 3. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has argued that once thepetitioner had taken the plea that he was originally a tenant of the father-inlawof the respondent and once the respondent had denied the writtenagreement between the petitioner and her, the issues would be necessary.He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Salil Jindalvs. Hans Raj @ Pappu, passed in C.R. No.5172 of 2016, decided on 08.05.2017. In that case, what had happened was that the petitioner in thatcase i.e. Salil Jindal had filed a rent eviction petition against that respondentalleging that he had purchased the property from the previous owner. Thestand of the respondent-tenant was that he was a tenant of the previouslandlord but had no notice of transfer of title by the previous landlord infavour of that petitioner and hence that petitioner should prove the same. Itwas in those circumstances that the issue regarding relationship of landlordand tenant was framed in that case. Subsequently, that tenant tendered thearrears since he did not want to risk being non-suited on the ground of nonpaymentand thereafter that landlord had moved an application for deletionof the issue on the ground that the tenant had accepted the relationship.That application having been dismissed he had approached this Court andthis Court had declined the prayer. As per the counsel for the petitioner, thepresent case stands on same footing and therefore the issue regardingrelationship should at least be framed. 4. In my opinion, this argument cannot be accepted. It would beseen that the nature of admission in the present case is unequivocal. Thepetitioner has accepted that the respondent is his landlord since he has beenpaying rent to her through account payee cheques. Merely because thelandlord has not accepted the written agreement would not change theessential relationship between the two. In the cited case there was no suchadmission. Rather the plea of the tenant in that case was specific that hehad no knowledge of the sale deed. In the circumstances, no fault can befound with the judgment of the Rent Controller. 5. Petition is dismissed. 6. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc.Application, if any, also stands disposed of.