K.D. Dewan v. Harbhajan S. Parihar
Case Details
Page 1 of 6 6 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 121 Hari Krishan Kalawati CORAM: Present:- CR-2403-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 29.05.2025 Vs. ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Amaninder Singh Sekho for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA ekhon, Advocate NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present Revision Petition h rd ion has been filed by the landlord seeking settin tting aside of the impugned order by rder dated 25.09.2018 passed by the Rent Con Controller, Chandigarh thereby dis ion dismissing the Eviction Petition filed by the pe e petitioner under Section 13 of th ion f the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. The app appeal filed by the petitioner a ed r against the said order dated 25.09.2018 ha 8 has been dismissed by the lear ide learned Appellate Authority vide impugned ord order dated 28.01.2025. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the pe nly e petitioner submits that the only ground on w n which the Rent Petition filed en led by the petitioner has been dismissed by b by both the Courts below is that it ot t it was held that petitioner is not the owner of r of the demised premises. Learned er rned counsel contends that as per judgment of t of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. in “K.D. Dewan Vs. Harbhajan S. Parihar” Law aw Finder Doc ID # 3122, the landl he andlord need not be owner of the SUNENA 2025.05.29 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) demised prem remises. Learned counsel refers to Page 2 of 6 6 (cid:1) nt rs to Para 8 of the said judgment wherein it is h is held as follows:- “8. A perusal of the provision, q the n, quoted above, shows that the following categories of persons fo of sons fall within the meaning of landlord: (1) any person for the t ive the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building o ee, ing or rented land; (2) a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or her or administrator for any other person; (3) a tenant who sublets in lets any building or rented land in the manner authorised under th on er the Act; and (4) every person from time to time deriving title un fro ese tle under a landlord. Among these four categories of persons, brou fo of brought within the meaning of landlord', Mr. Sharma sought to ast t to derive support from the last category. Even so that category r ves ory refers to a person who derives his title under a landlord and a and not under an owner of a premises. For purposes of the sa of e said category the transferor of the title referred to therein m the in must fall under any of the categories (1) to (3). To be a lan of a landlord within the meaning of clause (c) of Section 2 a person the rson need not necessarily be the owner; in a vast majority of case rd cases an owner will be a landlord but in many cases a person other be ther than an owner may as well be a landlord. It may be that in a give an a given case the landlord is also an owner but a landlord under the A . It the Act need not be the owner. It may be noted that for purposes as ses of the Act the legislature has made a distinction between an a an owner of a premises and a landlord. The Act deals with the f a h the rights and obligations of a landlord only as defined therein. is rein. Ownership of a premises is immaterial for purposes of the Act e Act.” SUNENA 2025.05.29 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 3. It is submitted that in the Page 3 of 6 6 (cid:1) he the undisputed position that the petitioner is t is the landlord, ownership of the d the petitioner over the demised premises is ren is rendered irrelevant. 4. It is further submitted nt ed that in dismissing the Rent Petition, learn learned Courts below have ignore ich nored evidence on record which proves that at petitioner was landlord. From he From the evidence led by the petitioner, it h , it has been categorically proved t he ed that since 1987, father of the petitioner fro from his income had constructe ing ucted the house which is being referred to a o as the demised premises and he and is in the possession of the property. From From the evidence, it was establish is lished that the present tenancy is subsisting sinc since the time of father of the peti bill petitioner. Even the electricity bill of the demise mised premises was in the name er. ame of father of the petitioner. Learned Court ourts below also failed to appreciat ny ciate that there is no claim of any other person son being in the ownership of th ed f the demised property. Learned counsel also re so refers to Para 3 of the Rent Petiti he etition (Annexure P1) wherein the petitioner has has categorically stated that the en the demised premises had been taken on ren rent by the husband of the resp on respondent in January 2008 on monthly rent ent of Rs.3,000/- per month. It is su ot is submitted that this fact has not been specifica ifically denied by the respondent in re nt in her written statement before the Rent Con Controller. Thus, the evidence en ce of the petitioner has been unrebutted. L . Learned counsel accordingly pray be prays that the impugned orders be set aside. SUNENA 2025.05.29 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 5. 6. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned cou nd counsel for the petitioner and Page 4 of 6 6 (cid:1) perused the ca e case file in great detail. 7. Perusal of record of the c er he case shows that the petitioner had filed “P “Petition under Section 13 of th ent of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ac Act, 1949 as applicable to Unio for Union Territory, Chandigarh for eviction of resp f respondent from the entire Ground se ound Floor of First Floor of House No.167, Bapu apu Dham Colony, Phase III, Secto ed ector 26, Chandigarh.” on dated 23.03.2017 be 7 before the learned Rent Controlle ad troller, Chandigarh. Petitioner had sought evictio iction of the respondent from the de of e demised premises on ground of arrears of rent rent and personal necessity. It was at was the case of the petitioner that the property erty had been allotted to one UT one Ram Swaroop by the UT Administration ation in the year 1979, who had furt to further given the said property to father of the p he petitioner namely Om Parkash in rd, sh in the year 1988. In this regard, learned coun ounsel has referred to the Inqui 12 nquiry Report dated 18.05.2012 (Annexure P1 P13) of the Inquiry Officer, Polic UT Police Station, Vigilance Cell, UT Administration ation in respect of illegal connection 63 tion of electricity in House No.163 & 167 and als d also illegal occupation in Houses pu ses No.158-E, 163 &167 in Bapu Dham Colony ony Phase-III Sector 26 Chandigarh en arh. In the said report, it has been noticed that: at:- “…A survey was also conducted b ear ted by the Estate office in the year 1988 at that time one Om Parka se. arkash was residing in this house. After that nothing is mentioned r On ned regarding the clarification. On SUNENA 2025.05.29 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 19.07.2011, one Hari Krishna s/ Page 5 of 6 6 (cid:1) ted a s/o Omparkash had submitted the draft for the rent of this house his ouse. Electricity connection of this house is also in the name of Sh. O h. Om Parkash.” 8. Be that as it may, the sa e said facts i.e. Occupying the demised prem premises since 1988 or having ele electricity bill of the demised premises in on in one’s name, would not in any man manner bestow ownership upon Om Parkash. sh. In fact, record reveals that PW t PW3 Jagwinder Singh, official witness from t om the Estate Office had categorical rically deposed that the demised premises were were never allotted to Om Parkash a ash and that Ram Swaroop is still the allottee- -lessee. After extensive considera ideration of the evidence led by the parties, th s, the learned Rent Controller had had concluded that the demised premises is a is a leasehold property which was a as allotted to Ram Saroop; that the petitioner oner was not proved to be landlo ndlord let alone owner of the demised prem remises. In this regard, the learned ned Rent Controller has referred to the admiss ission of the petitioner himself as lf as recorded in para …… of the order dated 25 d 25.9.2018, wherein the petitioner oner had clearly admitted before the Rent Cont ontroller that he was “unable to pro o produce or show the allotment letter of the sa he said house and he does not kno t know who was residing in the Jhugi in lieu of u of which aforesaid tenement was was allotted. Further stated that, he cannot prod produce any rent agreement which hich shows that he is a landlord of the respond pondent, nor he is having any docum ocument from which it could be transpired as h as he is landlord/owner of the ten tenement in question.”. In fact, the petitioner ner has even been unable to produ oduce any rent receipts let alone SUNENA 2025.05.29 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 6 of 6 6 (cid:1) a Rent Deed t ed to establish his status as landlor dlord what to say of owner. The petitioner also also failed to prove that the site in q in question was ever allotted to his father by w by way of any Lease Deed by the Ch e Chandigarh Administration. 9. The petitioner can derive rive no benefit from the relied upon judgmen ment in case of K.D. Dewan (supra upra) as in the present case, not only has the the petitioner been unable to pro prove that he is owner of the demised prem premises, but as noticed above, th e, the petitioner has also been unable to esta establish that he is landlord of the d the demised premises as no rent receipts or R r Rent Agreement have been p n produced by the petitioner. Therefore, no , no ground is made out to disturb th rb the concurrent findings of the learned Cour ourts below. Present Revision P n Petition accordingly stands dismissed. 10. Pending application(s) if an
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. 29.05.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: SUNENA 2025.05.29 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)