Kamaljit Kaur & Anr. v. Varinder Kumar & Ors.

Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Alok Singh, J. Present petition is filed invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), assailing the order dated 17.08.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Phagwara, as well as order dated C.R. No. 2549 of 2009 2

12.02.2009 passed by the learned Appellate Authority (under the Act), Kapurthala. The brief facts of the present case, inter-alia, are that landlord-respondent preferred eviction petition against the LRs of the original tenant, contending that demised premises was taken on rent by Sh. Pritam Singh Jassal at the rate of Rs.100/- pr month. Pritam Singh Jassal expired on

11.4.2002. The respondents therein are the legal heirs of Pritam Singh Jassal and after his death, they have inherited the tenancy rights and thus, the respondents have become tenants under the applicant-landlord. The respondents have not paid rent of the tenanted premises from 01.01.2001 till the date of filing of the eviction petition at the rate of Rs.100/- per month. The respondents have ceased to occupy the tenanted premises shown in the site plan mark `X’ from

11.04.2002 for a continuous period of more than four months without reasonable cause immediately before filing the eviction petition. The tenanted premises is lying closed and no work/business is being carried out in the tenanted premises for more than last four months before filing the eviction petition. An electric connection was in the said premises bearing A/C No. CF 42/0241 in the name of Pritam Singh, the original tenant and the said electric connection has been disconnected and removed by the P.S.E.B. authorities on C.R. No. 2549 of 2009 3

22.09.2002 and at present, there is no electricity in the tenanted premises. Tenants refuted the plea of the petitioner – landlord and contended that on the first day of hearing, tenants have tendered the amount of rent, interest and cost in the Court, hence, ground of arrears of rent does not survive. It is further contended by the tenants that the petitioner – landlord designedly received the electricity bills from the department and made the payment without notice of the respondent to show that the respondents have not made the payments of the electricity consumed. The respondents have denied that they have ceased to occupy the demised premises as alleged and it has further been alleged that after the death of Pritam Singh Jassal, the original tenant, on 11.04.2002, the legal heirs of Pritam Singh Jassal, as joint tenants, are opening the premises in question daily and using the same for their business. It is further contended by the tenants that they are in physical possession and occupation of the demised premises as tenants and the premises never remained closed or locked for any period. Learned Rent Controller having perused the statement of Harminder Pal Singh (AW-2), an official of PSEB, observed that it is very much clear that the premises in question had an electric connection, during the life time of Pritam Singh Jassal and connection was disconnected on C.R. No. 2549 of 2009 4

22.09.2002 vide order of PSEB authorities Ex.A-1. It is further observed by the learned Rent Controller that Kamaljit Kaur, respondent No.3 therein has herself stepped into witness box as RW-1 and under cross-examination, has admitted that Pardeep Singh Jassal, has gone abroad after selling his business to Bhul Car Bazar. She has further admitted that she is married and is living in her in-laws house and is doing teaching service since 1992 and that her mother Balbir Kaur, being of old age, is not doing any business. She further admitted in her cross-examination that respondent No.4 – Jagdeep Singh Jassal has gone abroad and is not doing business in the demised premises. She further stated that one Ravinder Singh is running shop under Pardeep Singh because Pardeep Singh had temporarily gone abroad. It is further observed by the learned Rent Controller that Ravinder Singh has been brought to the witness box to prove that it is he, who is working under Pardeep Singh in the demised premises, however, no other person from the locality where the demised premises is situated has been examined to prove that the premises in question was being used for the purpose of business by the respondents. Learned Rent Controller having considered the entire material available on record has come to the conclusion that respondents have ceased to occupy the demised premises after the death of Pritam Singh Jassal and that they have ceased to carry on any business for the period C.R. No. 2549 of 2009 5 of more than four months before filing of the eviction petition. Ultimately, eviction petition was allowed vide impugned order dated 17.08.2007. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 17.08.2007, a statutory appeal was filed by Kamaljit Kaur and Balbir Kaur, (the present revisionists) making Pardeep Singh Jassal and Jagdeep Singh Jassal as proforma respondents. The Appellate Authority found favour with the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 12.02.2009. Feeling aggrieved from the orders of eviction passed by both the Courts below, now Kamaljit Kaur and Balbir Kaur have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of the Act. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the revisionists vehemently argued that in fact, Pardeep Singh Jassal, son of the original tenant Pritam Singh Jassal, is carrying on car decoration business in the demised premises. On being confronted with the statements made on oath before the learned Rent Controller, learned counsel stated that only Pardeep Singh Jassal is doing business in the demised premises. The fact remains neither Pardeep Singh Jassal nor his brother Jagdeep Singh Jassal were produced in the witness box saying that in fact Pardeep Singh Jassal is doing any business in the demised premises. The person who is carrying on the business is not coming before the Court. C.R. No. 2549 of 2009 6 Moreover, appeal and present revision were filed by Kamaljit Kaur and Balbir Kaur, who admittedly not in occupation of the demised premises. Pradeep Singh, who is said to be running business in the demised premises has neither filed appeal nor filed present revision. Hence in the opinion of the Court, adverse inference shall be drawn against him to the effect that he is not doing any business in the property in dispute. Had he been in possession he would have step in the witness box and would have filed appeal or revision to protect his possession and business. In the present case, both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that after the death of the original tenant – Pritam Singh Jassal, none of the legal heirs of Pritam Singh Jassal are carrying on any business and have ceased to occupy and use the demised premises. I do not find any reason or ground to interfere in the judgments of both the Courts below. Revision petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, two months’ time is granted to the tenant to handover peaceful vacant possession to the landlord. August 19, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) Judge