CIVIL APPEAL 2937 of 2009 on 7 August 1994

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARHCIVIL REVISION NO.2937 OF 2009

Rajinder Singh and another

Gurcharan Singh and others

Versus

Date of decision : 13.7.2010… Petitioners …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA

Present:Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate

for the petitioner.None for the respondents.

Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral)

This is a tenant’s revision petition against the judgment passed bythe Rent Controller as affirmed by the appellate authority ordering the evictionof the petitioner from the demised premises.

The respondent-landlady filed petition against the petitioner underSection 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ( in short the‘Act’) on the ground of non-payment of rent, the building being unsafe andunfit, as also on the ground of personal necessity.

The case pleaded by the land-lady was that Sulakhan Singh wasowner of the demised premises, he executed a registered Will on 7.8.1994 infavour of Harnam Kaur. After the death of Sulakhan Singh, Smt. HarnamKaur became the exclusive owner of the property in question under Will, andthere existed relationship as landlady and tenant.

The case of the landlady is that after the death of Smt. HarnamKaur, she being sole legal heir, became the owner of the property. The petitionwas contested by the petitioner-claimant by denying the relationship oflandlord and tenant. The petitioner also denied the other averments regarding building being unsafe and unfit. The ground of personal necessity was alsodenied. In spite of the fact that the petitioner denied the relationship oflandlord and tenant, but in order to protect his eviction, he deposited the renton the first date of hearing. As the petitioner tendered the rent, the ground ofnon-payment of rent was given up.

Learned Rent Controller did not find that building was unfit andunsafe. Accordingly, this ground of eviction was also rejected. The learnedRent Controller however, accepted the plea of landlady that the premises wasrequired for her personal use and occupation. The finding of personal necessitywas recorded on appreciation of evidence on record, wherein she had pleadedand proved that the premises was required for the business of her two sons.

The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment passed bythe learned Rent Controller. The appellate Court affirmed the finding recordedby the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently, contended thatimpugned order passed by the Rent Controller, as affirmed by the learnedappellate Authority, cannot be sustained as there exists no relationship oflandlord and tenant between the parties.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was thatthe learned Rent Controller by wrongly placing reliance on previous judgment,in which the petition for eviction filed by the respondent-landlady on theground of non-payment of rent, was dismissed as withdrawn after the tender ofrent was made, recorded a finding that there exists relationship of landlord andtenant.

The contention raised was that the mere tender of rent to saveeviction, while protecting the right to recover the amount deposited/paid,cannot amount to admission of relationship as landlady and tenant.

In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitionerplaced reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Mahant Sarju Vs. JiaLal,1990 (1) PLR 364.

It is also the contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe petitioner, that the ground of personal necessity was not proved as the legalheirs of the respondent, in support of their stand, placed reliance on familysettlement, executed on 5.1.2005 that is after the death of Amarjit Kaur andtherefore, the finding recorded is outcome of misreading of evidence, as noreliance could be placed on the family settlement, which came into existenceafter filing of the petition.

On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised bylearned counsel for the petitioner. It cannot be disputed that mere tender of rentafter denying the relationship of landlord and tenant with liberty to seek refundthereafter, cannot be taken to be an admission of relationship of landlady-tenant, but this question does not arise in the present case, as the specificaverments made by the respondent-landlady in the petition that she hadbecome owner thus landlady of the property in pursuance to inheritance, beingsole legal heir of Harnam Kaur was not controverted in the written statement,as the averments were denied for want of knowledge. The petitioner furtherfailed to disclose who was the landlord.

In view of the fact that the averment was not disputed, no furtherproof was required to prove that the respondent-landlord was the owner of thepremises, thus, landlady as owner is always landlord, though landlord may notbe owner.

Second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner alsodeserves to be rejected. Even in the absence of family settlement, it wasalways open to the landlady to seek eviction for the personal use and occupation of her sons as she had no other property to adjust her sons. Thesubsequent event brought on record to prove that by way of family settlement,the premises in dispute were given to the persons for adjustment of whom theeviction was sought, can not be used to non suit their claim. There is sufficientevidence to prove that the need was bona fide. Both the learned trial Court andappellate authority on appreciation of evidence, have recorded the finding offact, that building was required for personal use. Merely for the reason thatsome family settlement was subsequently entered into, cannot be a ground tonon-suit the landlord on the ground of personal necessity, as the property byfamily settlement was given to the sons for whose benefit eviction was sought.For the reasons stated, finding no merit in this petition, it isordered to be dismissed but with no order as to costs.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is running commercialbusiness in the premises, he is granted three months’ time to vacate thepremises.

13.07.2010sd

( VINOD K.SHARMA ) JUDGE