M/s Nylo Knit v. Smt. Kiran Bala Seth

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition has been preferred by the tenant who was in occupation of the premises belonging to the respondent-landlord. Originally, the premises belong to one Jawaharlal Seth, husband of the present respondent and premises were let out to M/s R.R. Fabrics in 1983 which firm was being operated by Madan Lal. The rate of rent was Rs.1100/- p.m. The name of the firm M/s R.R.Fabrics was subsequently changed to M/s Nylo Knit and it is alleged that in 1991 an oral agreement was entered into between Jawahar Lal Seth and petitioner to increase the rent at the rate of 10% after every 5 years. Husband of the respondent is said to have expired on 14.12.2002 and the respondent inherited the property on the basis of Will dated 15.2.2002. She filed an ejectment CR No. 2631 of 2008 (O&M) 2 petition on 22.8.2003 seeking eviction of the present petitioner on the basis of non-payment of rent. Following were the dates given out by the respondent regarding non-payment of rent:- i) 1.4.2001 to 31.1.2002 at the rate of Rs.133/- which was the alleged increase over and above Rs.1100/- p.m ii) rent at the rate of Rs.1330/- p.m from 1.2.2002 to 31.10.2002 iii)from 1.11.2002 to till the date of filing of the petition i.e.

22.8.2003 regarding period from 1.2.2002 to 31.10.2002 it is alleged by the respondent that rent of Rs.10,980/- against payment of Rs. 1330/- p.m has been paid and she claimed balance amount for this period. The petitioner who was served chose not to appear before the Rent Controller and the respondent led evidence to prove her case and the proceedings being taken against the petitioner ex parte. However, the Rent Controller dismissed the rent petition by holding that there was no relation of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. Consequently, the payment of rent does not arise at all. The respondent thereafter went in appeal which was accepted and it is at the appellate stage that the petitioner chose to contest the proceedings. The Appellate Court accepted the appeal and held that relationship of tenant and landlord was established between the petitioner and the respondent as there were cheques marked from A to F which were a strong factor to arrive at the conclusion that such relation existed and it was also held that rent was not paid and thus ordered eviction. Subsequent to the passing of the order by the Appellate Authority, the respondent moved an application for correction of the order of the Appellate Authority that it omitted to mention that rent from CR No. 2631 of 2008 (O&M) 3

1.11.2002 till date of the filing of the petition has not been paid and this was an additional ground on which the eviction of the petitioner ought to have been ordered. The said application was allowed and the necessary correction was made in the order of the appellate authority on 20.9.2008. Certified copy of the same has been produced on record and has been taken on record as mark 'AA'. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that relationship of landlord and tenant does not stand proved as the respondent came on the basis of Will which was registered and in which there was a clear citation that Vinay Lal Kathuria is tenant in the premises in question and since the proceedings were initiated against Nylo Knit through its proprietor Sh. Madan Lal Kathuria who is father of Vinay Lal Kathuria, the proceedings are not maintainable. He further contended that an erroneous finding has been recorded regarding the non-payment of rent as she has only claimed marginal difference of Rs.130 which is marginal increase over Rs.1100/- for the period specified in the rent petition. He thus contended that Appellate Authority has gone wrong in ordering eviction of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner chose not to contest the proceedings and did not controvert either relationship of landlord and tenant by filing written statement and in the absence of any such plea on behalf of the petitioner, the plea raised by the petitioner in the present revision petition cannot be permitted to be taken. Moreso, when in the grounds of revision he has not taken such a plea. He further contended that petitioner has not paid any amount and therefore, he is not entitled to any concession. He has also made a specific prayer for non-payment of rent from 1.11.2002 till filing of the CR No. 2631 of 2008 (O&M) 4 petition which stands established. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. The petitioner chose not to contest the proceedings although he has suggested that he was never served yet there is no material on the basis of which it can be stated that he was never served. No attempt was made by him to get the proceedings set aside so as to show that ex parte proceedings came into existence. If he was not aggrieved by the proceedings there was no occasion for him to join the proceedings at the appellate stage especially where the Rent Controller had dismissed the petition and the petitioner was denying relationship of landlord and tenant. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner has denied his relationship of tenant with the respondent when there is suggestive material on record to show that he was tenant in the premises. In such an eventuality, when a tenant choses to deny his relationship with landlord, he cannot be granted any indulgence as he questions the very foundation of such a relationship. Not only has he denied the relationship but also proved to be a tenacious tenant and has not even paid the rent since 2002 till the date of filing of the petition and even before this Court it has been contended by the respondent that not even a single penny has been paid to the respondent. During the course of proceedings, this Court offered the petitioner to pay the rent to the respondent and if possible accede to the payment of market rent as well but the offer apparently was not seized by the petitioner who chose to remain defiant. In such an eventuality, the Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority do not warrant any interference and the petitioner deserves to be evicted from the premises. CR No. 2631 of 2008 (O&M) 5 Order accordingly. Hence, petition stands dismissed. July 28, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) Judge