Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2167 (RAJ)

Parvej Malkani v. Jog Singh Rajguru

2019-08-09

SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : SANGEET LODHA, J. 1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 12.3.12 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, whereby while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent against the judgment dated 19.7.11 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, the findings recorded by the Rent Tribunal on issue no. 1, which relates to the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties, has been reversed and the matter has been remanded to the Rent Tribunal for decision on issues no. 2, 3 & 4 afresh, after examination of evidence on record and giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 2. The facts relevant are that the respondent claiming himself to be landlord filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner tenant from residential premises on the grounds of default in payment of rent, subletting and reasonable & bonafide requirement in terms of provisions of Section 9(a)(e) & (f) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001'). The respondent claimed that he had purchased the disputed property from its owner Ashok Jain and Manoj Jain by way of registered sale deed dated 23.6.95. 3. The petition was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto, wherein the factum of occupation of the premises as tenant was not denied, however, the petitioner claimed that he had taken the premises on rent from late Shri Inder Singh and not Shri Ashok Jain and Manoj Jain. It was further averred that as per the instructions of late Shri Inder Singh, the rent of premises was being paid by him to Smt. Chandrakala and therefore, she is the landlord of the premises in question. Suffice it to say that the landlord and tenant relationship was denied by the petitioner. 4. It was further averred that as per the instructions of late Shri Inder Singh, the rent of premises was being paid by him to Smt. Chandrakala and therefore, she is the landlord of the premises in question. Suffice it to say that the landlord and tenant relationship was denied by the petitioner. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed the issues as under: ^^1- D;k izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZx.k ds e/; Hkw&Lokeh o fdjk;snkj ds laca/k gS \ 2- D;k vizkFkhZ us fookfnr fdjk;s'kqqnk ifjlj dk fdjk;k pkj ekg ls vf/kd dh vof/k dk izkFkhZ dks vnk ugha dj fdjk;k vnk;xh esa pwd dh gS \ 3- D;k izkFkhZ dks fookfnr fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj dh vius Lo;a o viuh iRuh ds fy;s o`)koLFkk o chekfj;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;qfä;qä ,oa lnHkkfod vko';drk gS \ 4- D;k vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 us fookfnr fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 dks fcuk izkFkhZ dh vuqefr ls mi&fdjks ij ns fn;k gS \^^ 5. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal decided the issue no. 1 against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the petition seeking eviction was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur. The Appellate Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding that the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties stands established on the basis of the evidence on record and thus, while reversing the finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal on issue no. 1 as aforesaid, the matter has been remanded to the Rent Tribunal to record the finding on issues no. 2, 3 & 4 and decide the petition afresh. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has decided the issue no. 1 in favour of the respondent on the basis of registered sale deed dated 23.6.95, but the basic issue whether the person selling the disputed property to the respondent had any right to sell the property or not, has not been touched by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 1 in favour of the respondent on the basis of registered sale deed dated 23.6.95, but the basic issue whether the person selling the disputed property to the respondent had any right to sell the property or not, has not been touched by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that there was absolutely no evidence on record suggesting that Ashok Jain and Manoj Jain were receiving the rent from the petitioner and thus, in absence of any evidence in this regard the finding arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal holding that the respondent is the landlord and the petitioner, a tenant, is ex facie perverse. Learned counsel submitted that earlier Ashok Jain had filed a suit for eviction against the father of petitioner no. 1, Shri Ghisu Khan, the original tenant, wherein Shri Ghisu Khan denied the landlord and tenant relationship, however, the said suit was withdrawn by Shri Ashok Jain unconditionally and thus, the fresh petition filed by the respondent, who is claiming rights over the premises through Shri Ashok Jain, was not maintainable. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in drawing an adverse inference on account of non appearance of Shri Ghisu Khan as witness for cross-examination. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, the cross-examination of the respondent Jog Singh was completed on 30.10.10, whereas Shri Ghisu Khan had expired on 19.2.08. The respondent was required to prove his own case and thus, no adverse interference can be drawn on account of no evidence being led on behalf of the petitioners-tenant. Learned counsel submitted that the cross-examination of the respondent has also not been appreciated by the Appellate Rent Tribunal in correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous finding being arrived at. 7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that Ashok Jain and Manoj Jain being son and grandson respectively of late Shri Inder Singh Jain, they had acquired the disputed premises by inheritance and thus, they were not required to even produce any evidence to prove their title over the disputed property. 7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that Ashok Jain and Manoj Jain being son and grandson respectively of late Shri Inder Singh Jain, they had acquired the disputed premises by inheritance and thus, they were not required to even produce any evidence to prove their title over the disputed property. Learned counsel submitted that there was no evidence led on behalf of the respondent to establish that after death of Shri Inder Singh Jain, the disputed property devolved upon Smt. Chandrakala and she was receiving the rent of the premises as claimed and thus, the finding arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal after due consideration of the evidence on record remains a finding of fact, which cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. Indisputably, as per provisions of Section 15, the landlord or any person claiming possession is entitled to file a petition before the Rent Tribunal seeking eviction of the tenant. As per the definition of "landlord" set out in Section 2 (c) of the Act of 2001, landlord is the person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let out to a tenant. But then, the natural landlord of the premises is ordinarily the owner and he is entitled to receive the rent of the premises. In this regard, the reliance may be placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Rishabh Chand Bhandari (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. vs. National Engineering Industry Limited", 2009 (10) SCC 601 , wherein while considering the provisions of Section 3 (iii) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which is pari materia to the provisions of Section 2 (c) of the Act of 2001, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "7. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. 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 authorise 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 Madan Lal v. Hazara Singh. We approve of the view taken in the said decision." 10. Admittedly, the disputed premises was owned by late Shri Inder Singh Jain with whom landlord and tenant relationship is not denied by the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that after the death of Shri Inder Singh, his widow Smt. Chandrakala was receiving the rent and therefore, she is the landlord in terms of provisions of Section 2 (e) of the Act of 2001. But then, no evidence whatsoever was led by the petitioners showing that after the death of Shri Inder Singh Jain, the disputed premises exclusively devolved upon Smt. Chandrakala and she was receiving the rent. Shri Ashok Jain and Manoj Jain being the son and grandson of Shri Inder Singh Jain, claimed to have inherited the property and in absence of any evidence contrary, their right to transfer the property prima facie cannot be doubted. The respondent having purchased the property from Shri Ashok Jain and Manoj Jain by way of registered sale deed, being a transferee, acquires all rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in subsisting tenancy. 11. Coming to the earlier suit (No. 687/87) preferred by Shri Ashok Jain against the tenant Ghisu Khan, it is noticed that the said suit was filed on the grounds specified under Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. It is true that in the said suit, the respondent had disputed the landlord and tenant relationship. 11. Coming to the earlier suit (No. 687/87) preferred by Shri Ashok Jain against the tenant Ghisu Khan, it is noticed that the said suit was filed on the grounds specified under Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. It is true that in the said suit, the respondent had disputed the landlord and tenant relationship. That apart, Smt. Chandrakala, the wife of late Shri Inder Singh Jain had preferred an application in the said suit for impleading her as party to the proceedings, stating that after the death of Shri Inder Singh Jain, all the members of the joint family have become owner of the property and thus, Shri Ashok Jain alone is not entitled to maintain the suit. There might be a dispute existing between Shri Ashok Jain and Smt. Chandrakala regarding partition of the property but the fact remains that Shri Ashok Jain was accepted to be co-owner of the property and thus, the petitioners could not have denied the landlord and tenant relationship. Be that as it may, even the co-owner of the property being landlord within his own right, alone is entitled to maintain the petition for eviction against the tenant. In this view of the matter, on account of the earlier suit being withdrawn by Shri Ashok Jain stating that he had sold the property, in no manner would preclude the transferee landlord from filing the suit for eviction under the provisions of the Act of 2001 and thus, nothing turns on the question that the earlier suit for eviction filed was withdrawn by the landlord Shri Ashok Jain through whom the respondent is claiming the rights over the disputed premises. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, in the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, reversing the finding recorded by the Rent Tribunal on issue no. 1 and remanding the matter to the Rent Tribunal for adjudication of the other issues after due consideration of the evidence on record and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 13. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The record of the case may be sent back to the Rent Tribunal forthwith. The Rent Tribunal is directed to decide the petition expeditiously.