Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1941 (ALL)

Union of India v. Balvinder Kaur

2019-08-13

IRSHAD ALI

body2019
ORDER : Irshad Ali, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. In spite of sufficient notice upon the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, no one appeared on their behalf before this Court. 3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 7.6.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Lakhimpur Kheri and the order dated 24.4.2008, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, whereby the claim setup by the petitioners has been rejected in regard to the fact that the lady who has issued notice is not the owner of the property, therefore, the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is illegal and no case for eviction from the house can be directed by the Judge, Small Causes Court or by the revisional Court. 4. To decide the controversy involved in the present writ petition, relevant facts are necessary to be taken into consideration. 5. On 13.11.1983, one Smt. Sawarn Kaur W/o Sri Sewa Singh let out her house situated at Gram Post Bhira, Pargana Bhoor, District Kheri, which was 15 km away from the municipality Pallia Kalan and 17 km away from the Town area, Mailani on the rent of Rs. 700 per month to the petitioners. Smt. Sawarn Kaur died and Sri Sewa Singh became the landlord/owner of the property in the year 1990. The petitioners continued to pay the rent to Sri Sewa Singh. 6. In the year 1994, Sri Sewa Singh filed S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 1994 for eviction from the house in dispute. The said suit was decided against the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 14.7.1994, against which, Revision No. 8 of 1997 was filed, which was decided in terms of compromise vide judgment and order dated 18.4.1998, whereby it was resolved that in case the petitioners shall pay the enhanced rent of Rs. 1,500/- per month, they will be permitted to reside in the house. 7. Sri Sewa Singh died on 26.4.2000. His legal heirs, vide letter dated 5.7.2000 requested the petitioners that 50% of rent be paid to Smt. Balvinder Kaur W/o Sardar Jassa Singh and the rest 50% be paid to Smt. Charanjeet Kaur W/o Sardar Sikh Charan Singh. In terms of the letter dated 5.7.2000, the petitioners paid rent to them. 8. 7. Sri Sewa Singh died on 26.4.2000. His legal heirs, vide letter dated 5.7.2000 requested the petitioners that 50% of rent be paid to Smt. Balvinder Kaur W/o Sardar Jassa Singh and the rest 50% be paid to Smt. Charanjeet Kaur W/o Sardar Sikh Charan Singh. In terms of the letter dated 5.7.2000, the petitioners paid rent to them. 8. Smt. Balvinder Kaur W/o Sardar Jassa Singh and Smt. Charanjeet Kaur W/o Sardar Sikh Charan Singh issued legal notice to the petitioners for ejectment from the premises in question and in pursuance thereof, Suit No. 16 of 2004 was filed before the Judge, Small Causes Court for ejectment from house. 9. The suit was contested by the petitioners, which was decided by the Judge, Small Causes Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.7.2006, whereby direction was issued to the petitioners to vacate the premises within three months from the date of order dated 12.7.2006 and in case it is not vacated by the petitioners, then the opposite parties are at liberty to vacate the petitioners from the premises with the help of the court bearing the expenses, whichever come for the purpose. Further direction was issued to pay Rs. 50/- per day from the date of judgment dated 12.7.2006 till the date of actual handing over possession to the plaintiffs/ opposite parties. 10. The petitioners filed Revision No. 5 of 2008, against the judgment dated 12.7.2006 and the matter was remanded by the District Judge vide order dated 20.7.2007 for reconsideration of claim of the petitioners to the Judge, Small Causes Court and subsequently, the suit was again decided vide judgment and decree dated 22.4.2008, which has been affirmed by the revisional court in Revision No. 4 of 2008, affirming the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court. 11. Assailing the aforesaid two orders, submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that interpretation of Section 3(1) of Act No. 13 of 1972 was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) By LRs and another Vs. National Engineering Industry Ltd. [ 2009 (27) LCD 1575 ] and after considering the relevant provisions and material on record, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 10 has held that the natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. National Engineering Industry Ltd. [ 2009 (27) LCD 1575 ] and after considering the relevant provisions and material on record, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 10 has held that the natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rent statures of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorize any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of picture altogether and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the matter has approved the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh. 1977 (2) RLR 641. 12. In the light of the observation, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the courts below by misinterpreting the provision, have committed gross illegality in passing the orders, therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. He next submitted that during the course of pendency of revision, the petitioners have vacated the disputed premises, therefore, they are aggrieved only with the portion, whereby direction has been issued for the payment of penalty of Rs. 100/- per day w.e.f. the date of issuance of notice till the date of judgment and learned counsel for the petitioners confined his submission to the extent that in case the portion of penalty of judgment of both the courts below is set aside, justice would be met. 13. His last submission is that both the courts below have acted arbitrarily and in a perverse manner in deciding the issue, therefore, both the orders suffer from apparent illegality and cannot be sustained. 14. I have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record as well as the law report relied upon. 15. 14. I have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record as well as the law report relied upon. 15. To resolve the controversy involved, definition of 'landlord' defined under Section 3(1) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 is quoted below:- ""landlord", in relation to a building, means a person to whom its rent is or if the building, were let would be, payable, and includes, except in clause (g), the agent or attorney, of such person" 16. The definition of 'landlord' was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) By LRs and another (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 10 and 11 as under :- "10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rent statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorize any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal Vs. Shri Hazara Singh 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner, who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given. 11. In the present case the respondent has not been able to show that it was authorized in writing to act on behalf of the Trust either by a power of attorney or any other written document. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given. 11. In the present case the respondent has not been able to show that it was authorized in writing to act on behalf of the Trust either by a power of attorney or any other written document. Unless there is some documentary proof that the Trust had authorized its agent to file a suit for eviction on its behalf, it cannot be said that the respondent had any right to file such a suit, even though it had actually let out the premises to the appellant and collected rent. The respondent is admittedly not the owner of the premises, and only claims to be the agent of the Trust." 17. On perusal of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the definition referred hereinabove was duly considered and it was held that by authorizing in writing to act on behalf of the trust either by power of attorney or any other written document, unless there is some documentary proof that the trust had authorized its agent to file a suit for eviction on its behalf, it cannot be said that the respondent has any right to file such a suit, even though it had actually let out the premises to the appellant and collected the rent and lastly, it was held that the respondents of that proceeding were not the owner of the premises and only claim to be the agent of the trust to collect the rent. 18. Here in the present case also, Sardar Jassa Singh and Sardar Sikh Charan Singh authorized their wives to collect the rent from the petitioners. They never authorized to institute a suit for eviction to their wives against the petitioners. 19. Accordingly, the ratio of the judgment referred hereinabove is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 20. On perusal of the judgment of the trial court as well as of the revisional court, it is well established that on the basis of letters issued by Sardar Jassa Singh and Sardar Sikh Charan Singh, they authorized their wives to be the agent to collect the rent and on the basis of law laid down in the case of Ram Chandra Kapil (Deceased) Through LRs Vs. Jag Mohan Chandra Pandey (Deceased) Through LRs and others [2005 (61) ALR 256], proceeded to hold that the authorized person to collect the rent has right to initiate proceeding for eviction from the house in dispute. 21. The trial court on the point that wives were entitled to issue notice for eviction under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act proceeded to hold and decide the revision affirming the judgment and order passed by the trial court by noticing the fact that the petitioners have vacated the disputed premises during the pendency of revision, has directed for the payment of penalty of Rs. 100/- per day from the date of issuance of notice till the date of passing of the judgment. 22. Upon thoughtful consideration and on perusal of the law laid down in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) By LRs and another (Supra), the Court is of the opinion that the revisional court has committed manifest error of law in not considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. The petitioners have vacated the disputed premises, therefore, by setting aside the judgment passed by the revisional court, no useful purpose will be served by remanding the case before the revisional court for consideration of ratio of the judgment and to pass a fresh order. The only dispute involved at present is that whether the respondents are entitled to get penalty amount of Rs. 100/- per day from the date of notice till the judgment passed against them or not. 23. It has been recorded in the above referred paragraphs that the authorized person to collect the rent has no right to issue notice of eviction from the house in dispute till he is not authorized to do the same. Here in the present case, on perusal of material on record, it is well established that there is no material authorizing Smt. Balvinder Kaur W/o Sardar Jassa Singh and Smt. Charanjeet Kaur W/o Sardar Sikh Charan Singh by their husbands to issue notice to the petitioners for eviction, therefore, the penalty imposed of Rs. 100/- per day is not sustainable in law. 24. The petitioners have vacated the premises in dispute, therefore, in view of the observation made above, the impugned orders are modified to the extent that the penalty imposed is not recoverable form the petitioners and is hereby set aside. 25. 100/- per day is not sustainable in law. 24. The petitioners have vacated the premises in dispute, therefore, in view of the observation made above, the impugned orders are modified to the extent that the penalty imposed is not recoverable form the petitioners and is hereby set aside. 25. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed only to that extent.