Dilbagh Singh v. Jarnail Singh

Judgment

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated

14.12.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Chandigarh Amendment) Act, 1982 (for brevity, 'the Act') wherein the ejectment application filed by the landlord has been allowed and the application for seeking leave to defend has been rejected.

2. The landlord filed the petition on 13.05.2011 within one year prior to his retirement under Section 13-A of the Act to recover immediate possession of the residential building described as House No.2868/2, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh on the ground that he is a co-owner and received rent on his own account and was holding an appointment as Supervisor in the Office of Principal Accountant General (Audit), Haryana, Chandigarh in connection with the affairs of Union of India and was to retire on

31.07.2011. It was averred that the petitioner's tenancy under the respondent was established in the previous litigation which has become final between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent attached certified copies of order dated 02.05.2006 passed by the Court of Mrs.Nirja CR No.1816 of 2012 2 Kulwant Kalson, Rent Controller, Chandigarh in Rent Petition No.4 of

03.01.2003 and judgment dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Court of Sh.R.K.Sondhi, Appellate Authority, Chandigarh in Rent Appeal No.42 of 2006 and the subsequent orders dated 18.02.2009 in CR No.1952 of 2008 decided by this Court. The original certificate issued by the competent authority to remove the respondent from service showing the date of respondent's retirement as 31.07.2011 was also appended. It was also averred that the landlord does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Chandigarh and thus, had a right to recover immediate possession.

3. The ejectment application was resisted by filing application under Section 18-A of the Act on the ground that the term 'specified landlord' is defined in Section 2(hh) of the Act and the premises did not belong to the respondent and were in the name of Amrit Singh and the respondent was not the owner of the premises and therefore, had no locus standi to file the present petition and the record of the Chandigarh Housing Board and the Annual Property Return of the respondent showed that he was not owner of the demised premises, and therefore, he was not entitled to maintain the petition under Section 13-A of the Act and he had not pleaded that who was

the owner of the property in dispute. It was contended that there was no benefit in getting the property vacated and leave to defend should be granted and that some persons had come to inspect the property on

16.05.2011 and had seen the house carefully and one of them, Sh.Jagdish Lal claimed himself to be the prospective buyer. The ejectment petition filed by the landlord was not supported by affidavit as per the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and had not been verified property and summons CR No.1816 of 2012 3 should have been received as per provision contained in Order 5 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure and the certificate was alleged to have been issued by the office of Principal Accountant General (Audit) Haryana, Chandigarh in a forged and fabricated manner and did not contain the stamp or some certificate to show its genuinity and that the landlord was habitual litigant and used to file cases against the tenant and the landlord's earlier petition for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent and on the ground of material alterations had been dismissed. It was alleged that the landlord was in possession of House No.2828, Sector 22, Chandigarh and he had entered into an agreement to sell the disputed premises to Mr.Jagdish Lal, and therefore, leave to contest was prayed for.

4. The application was contested by filing reply and it was held out that the co-owner was also the sole owner and reliance was placed upon Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath & others AIR 1976 SC 2335 and it was pleaded that in the previous litigation between the parties, the tenant had been paying the rent to the landlord by tender or deposit in the Court and he could not be permitted to deny the title of the landlord. The requirement of law was to show the intention of the date of retirement through a certificate of the employer and tendering an affidavit that he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation and that the requirement was fully met in the ejectment petition. The landlord having retired as Supervisor from the office of the Principal, Accountant General (Audit) Haryana, Chandigarh in connection with the Union of India and that he was a specified landlord and the respondent's father name was Amrit Singh who had expired and who was the owner and the landlord was the co-owner and the tenant paid rent to him and he was entitled to receive the rent from the tenant. It was pleaded CR No.1816 of 2012 4 that the property returns were not relevant for seeking eviction of the tenant and did not affect the relationship of landlord and tenant. The agreement to sell with Jagdish Lal was denied and the premises could not be used for godown as alleged by the tenant. It was denied that the summons were not properly served and the possession of House No.2828, Sector 22, Chandigarh was stated to be of the brother of the landlord and the house belonged to him and it was in his possession and control and the landlord was not connected with it and there was no concealment.

5. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh, after taking into consideration the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act, came to the conclusion that the provision has been incorporated after amendment by way of notification in order to provide a summary procedure for eviction of the tenants from residential buildings of the Government employees and to enable the retiring employee to get the premises vacated within one year from the date of retirement. Accordingly, keeping in view the certificate issued on

09.05.2011 by the Principal, Accountant General (Audit), Haryana, Chandigarh and keeping in view that property stood in the name of Amrit Singh who was the father of the landlord having expired and in view of the earlier litigation between the parties, came to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and landlord being the specified landlord, was competent to file the petition and entitled to get the immediate possession. The non-genuine need of the landlord was repelled by holding that there was sufficient protection under the Rent Act in case the landlord did not occupy the building within 3 months of the vacation order and the alleged property situated in Sector 22 belonged to the brother of the specified landlord and there was no rebuttal to this effect, and CR No.1816 of 2012 5 therefore, leave to defend was denied and ejectment order was passed on

14.12.2011. Resultantly, the present revision petition has been filed.

6. The present petition came up for hearing for the first time on

22.03.2012 and the counsel for the petitioner was directed to place on record the earlier order dated 02.05.2006, the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 28.11.2007 and order dated 18.02.2009 passed by this Court in CR No.952 of 2008 which has now been placed on record as Annexure P-5 to P-7 by way of filing CM No.8190-CII of 2012. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no proof of ownership with the landlord-respondent and that a triable issue was raised whether Amrit Singh, the father of the landlord was the owner, and therefore, he had no right to seek eviction. The said submission is not acceptable under any circumstance as a categorical averment was made that in earlier litigation that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. A perusal of the order of the Rent Controller dated 02.05.2006 goes on to show that in the written statement filed by the present tenant-petitioner, he took the plea that the landlord had stopped collecting rent from him and had filed the petition and that the other legal heirs of the landlord were not arrayed as party. The relationship of landlord and tenant was never denied in the earlier proceedings which pertain to the non-payment of rent whereby the tenant was given one month's time to make the payment of arrears of rent @ Rs.363/- per month along with interest @ 6% per annum which was up-held in appeal on 28.11.2007 and the said order was up-held by this court in CR No.952 of 2008.

7. Once it has already been held in the earlier proceedings that the present petitioner was liable to pay the arrears of rent and the relationship of CR No.1816 of 2012 6 landlord-tenant was admitted and the respondent was entitled to the rent on his own account, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner-tenant to contend that the respondent-landlord is not the owner of the property. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1882 otherwise also estops the tenant from questioning the title of the landlord and Section 2 (c) of the Rent Act provides that the landlord means any person entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or of another person and under Section 2 (hh), the specified landlord means a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. Similarly, under Section 13-A of the Act, the words used are 'specified landlord' and ownership is not a relevant criteria. Section 2 (c) and 2 (hh) of the Act reads as under: “2. (c) “landlord” means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf or for the benefit, of any other person, or as a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person, and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter authorised, and, every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord.

2. (hh) “specified landlord” means a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.” The Hon'ble Apex Court in K.D.Dewan Vs. Harbhajan S.Parihar 2002(2) PLR 682 has held that the term landlord cannot be given a truncated meaning. Paragraphs No.9, 10 & 15 of the judgment reads as under: CR No.1816 of 2012 7 “9. Having noticed the definition of the term `landlord', it will be useful to refer to Section 13(3)(a) of the Act which reads as follows :- "Section 13. (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3)(a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession - (i) in the case of a residential building, if - (a) he requires it for his own occupation."

10. A plain reading of the provisions extracted above makes it clear that to claim a relief thereunder a person must be a landlord within the meaning of the terms in Section 2(c); his being owner of the premises is neither a pre- requisite nor a relevant factor.

15. From the above discussion it follows that such a truncated meaning of the term `landlord' cannot be imported in clause (c) of the Section 2 of the Act having regard to the width of the language employed therein and there is no other provision in the Act to restrict its meaning for purposes of Section 13(3)(a) thereof to an owner of the premises alone. The appellant has been paying monthly rent of the premises to the respondent from 1976. The respondent is thus the landlord of the premises under the Act and is entitled to seek relief under Section 13(3)(a) of the Act. In this view of the matter, we find no illegality in the order of this High Court under challenge. The appeal is without merit and it is liable to be dismissed.”

8. Therefore, in view of the admitted pleadings inter se the parties is that the late father of the respondent, Amrit Singh, being the owner of the property along with the respondent-landlord and in view of the fact that in the earlier rent proceedings, an admission had been made by the petitioner- tenant that the landlord had stopped receiving rent, it can be safely said that no fault can be found in the reasoning given by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with. CR No.1816 of 2012 8

9. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed in limine as no triable issue has arisen for consideration which would require adjudication under the revisional powers of this Court.

04.05.2012 sailesh (G.S.Sandhawalia) JUDGE