Sushila Rehani & Ors. v. Surjit Kaur & Anr.

Present : Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rimpaljeet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for respondent No. 2

3. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL)

Revisionist has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act assailing the order dated 12.12.1994 passed by Rent Controller Patiala as well as order dated 7.10.1996 passed by Appellate Authority Patiala whereby the eviction petition filed by respondent No. 1 - landlord was allowed and eviction order was passed.

The brief facts of the present case are that an eviction petition under Section 13 was filed by the landlord (respondent No. 1 herein) initially against respondent No. 2 (Bank herein) contending C.R. No. 5219 of 1996 2 that Bank has taken House No. 5-B from the landlord on rent as a tenant @ Rs. 700/- per month to be paid in advance. It has further been contended that respondent - Bank has allowed Mr. B.L. Rehani, Manager of the Bank to occupy the disputed premises. The further contention of the landlord is that tenant has failed to pay rent since March 1988. The further ground for eviction taken is that tenant has raised unauthorized construction on the premises without the permission of the landlord and construction has diminished the utility and value of the building.

In the reply Bank has stated that Bank has taken demised premises on rent vide receipt dated 26.9.1982. It has further been contended that demised premises was taken on rent for the residence of Sh. B.L. Rehani. It has further been stated by the Bank that Sh. B.L. Rehani has expired on 26.1.1988 and after his death his legal heirs are in occupation of the demised premises. It has further been contended by the Bank that Bank is not liable to pay the rent after death of Sh. B.L. Rehani and Bank has paid entire rent to the landlord upto 31.3.1988.

Petitioner along with other LRs of Sh. B.L. Rehani moved an application for seeking impleadment in the eviction petition which was allowed. Thereafter, separate reply was filed by the LRs of Sh. B.L. Rehani stating therein that building was taken on rent for Sh. B.L. Rehani and Bank has never taken the premises on rent. It has further averred that Bank has nothing to do with the premises in question. The further contention of the LRs of Sh. B.L. Rehani is that Sh. B.L. Rehani was senior officer in the State Bank of Patiala who died while in service leaving behind the LRs and landlord has C.R. No. 5219 of 1996 3 received rent from the account of Sh. B.L. Rehani through the Bank and landlord has received rent upto 31.3.1988. It has further been contended that landlord has accepted the rent from June 1988 to November 1990 amounting to Rs. 21,000/- from the respondents in this Court.

Learned Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority have recorded the finding of fact that building was taken on rent by the Bank for the residence of its senior officer - Sh. B.L. Rehani. It has further been observed by both the Courts below that Sh. B.L. Rehani never took the building on rent from the landlord. It has further observed by both the Courts below that after the death of Sh. B.L. Rehani his legal heirs are in unauthorized occupation of the demised premises. Ultimately eviction petition was allowed by the Courts below.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Rimpaljeet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners vehemently argued that eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act is maintainable against the tenant only and is not maintainable against the unauthorized occupant. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that since Sh. B.L. Rehani was working as senior officer in the Bank, hence, he used to get house rent allowance from the Bank and he was paying alleged money to the landlord through his Bank Account. Learned counsel for the petitioners further averred that since landlord is not admitting LRs of Sh. B.L. Rehani as tenant, hence, landlord can file civil suit for possession and can not file eviction petition C.R. No. 5219 of 1996 under the Rent Act. 4

Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate for the respondents vehemently argued that both the Courts below have rightly recorded that initially building was taken on rent by the Bank for the residence of its senior officer and Bank was making payment to the landlord. It has further been averred by learned counsel for the respondents that there was no relationship of landlord-tenant between the Bank and Sh. B.L. Rehani and Sh. B.L. Rehani was residing in the demised premises as an officer of the Bank. Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that if officer on behalf of the Bank is residing in the building then eviction petition against the Bank is very well maintainable under the Act.

From the perusal of the record it would reveal that initially Bank has taken demised premises on rent for the residence of its senior officer Sh. B.L. Rehani. Both the Courts below have rightly held that demised premises was taken on rent by the Bank for the residence of its officer. In the opinion of this Court if building is taken on rent by the Bank and senior officer of the Bank is residing therein it would not mean that officer residing would become the tenant. In the further opinion of this Court tenant will remain the Bank and eviction petition against the Bank for the eviction from the premises is very well maintainable. Employee of the tenant Bank who is in possession on behalf of the tenant Bank shall be agent of the tenant Bank only and after his death his LRs shall have no authority to remain in possession. Employee or family members of the employee of the tenant Bank are bound by the eviction order. They have C.R. No. 5219 of 1996 5 absolutely no right to contest the eviction petition filed against the tenant Bank independently.