Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar And Ors. vs Smt. Anguri Devi And Ors. on 19 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2003)133PLR201
Author: V.M. Jain
Bench: V.M. Jain
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the alleged tenants of the premises in question, challenging the orders passed by the Courts below whereby the Rent Controller had ordered the ejectment and the appeal filed by the alleged sub-tenants was dismissed by the appellant authority.
2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that Smt. Anguri Devi etc. (landlords) filed the ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as "the Haryana Act") against M/s Upper India Woolen Mills Limited, Panipat, being the tenant and M/s Navin Bharat Woollen and Cotton Industries and others as sub-tenants. It was alleged that originally, Tarlochan Lal and Lakshmi Chand were the owners to the extent of 1/2 share, while the other half portion was owned by Paras Ram and Daulat Ram. It was alleged that after the death of Daulat Ram, his share was inherited by Pawan Kumar. It was farther alleged that Smt. Anguri Devi had purchased the share of Lakshmi Chand and Tarlochan Lal through registered sale deed dated May 6, 1974. In this manner, Smt. Anguri Devi etc. were the owners and landlords of the building in question. It was alleged that previously M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited was holding the property in question as a tenant under the previous owners and now respondent No. 1 was the tenant under the present landlords Smt. Anguri Devi etc. It was alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 425/- per annum. It was further alleged that the tenant was liable to be ejected from the premises in question, firstly on the ground of non-payment of rent; secondly on the ground that the tenant had sub-let the entire tenanted premises to M/s Navin Bharat Woollen and Cotton Industries and others (sub-tenants) who were at present in occupation of the premises in question and that the tenant had parted with the possession of the property in question in their favour; thirdly, it was alleged that the tenant and the sub-tenants had made structural alterations in the premises in question and thereby had impaired materially the value or utility of the building in question and fourthly, the building in question had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was also alleged that the landlords asked the tenant and sub-tenants to vacate the premises but they failed to do so.
3. The ejectment petition was contested by the alleged sub-tenants. It was alleged that the previous owners, namely, Tarlochan Lal and Lakshmi Chand had let out their 1/2 share in the property in dispute to Sumer Chand for himself and on behalf of Anil Kumar and M/s Navin Bharat Woollen and Cotton Industries and that the previous owners had been getting the rent from them. It was alleged that they had offered rent to Smt. Anguri Devi, but she refused to accept the rent. It was further alleged that Daulat Ram and Paras Ram had leased out their 1/2 share in the property in question to Rama Nand. It was denied that M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited or Om Parkash Singla were the tenants over the property in dispute or that it was a case of sub-letting. It was further alleged that M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited did not exist at all and the ejectment petition had been filed against a non-existing person.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed. The learned Rent Controller held that the landlords have been able to prove that M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limit d was the tenant, whereas the alleged sub-tenants had failed to prove that they were direct tenants under the original landlords. It was further held that the tenant and the alleged sub-tenants were liable to be ejected from the premises in question on the ground of sub-letting; non-payment of rent and materially impairing the value or utility of the premises in dispute. However, it was held that the landlords have failed to prove that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Resultantly, the learned Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the tenant and the alleged sub-tenants from the premises in question. The appeal filed by the alleged sub-tenants was dismissed by the learned appellate authority, upholding the findings of the learned Rent Controller, referred to above. Aggrieved against the orders of the Courts below, the alleged sub-tenants have filed the present revision petition in this Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted before me that so far as M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited is concerned, the same was no more in existence, in view of the gazette of India notification Exhibit RX. It was submitted that even as per the landlords M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited was the tenant whereas the said alleged tenant had ceased to exist since the year 1964. It was submitted that since the said company ceased to exist in the year 1964, there would b.e no question of the said Company having sub-let the premises to the alleged sub-tenants. It was submitted that if one Om Parkash Singla had given the property in question on rent to the alleged sub-tenants, still it would not be a case of sub-letting, inasmuch as, admittedly, Om Parkash Singla was not a tenant and thus, there was no occasion for Om Parkash Singla to have sub-let the premises to the present petitioners. It was submitted that since there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Smt. Anguri Devi etc., on one hand and M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited on the other, there would be no question of the Rent Controller having the jurisdiction to order the ejectment of the alleged tenant, It was further submitted that since M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited was no longer in existence, there would be no question of M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited sub-letting the premises to the alleged sub-tenants.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-land lords submitted before me that even if M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited had ceased to exist in view of the notification Exhibit RX still the company was liable towards the landlords. It was further submitted that Om Parkash Singla was the Managing Director of the said company and he continued to be in possession of the building in question and that on behalf of the said company, Om Parkash Singla had sub-let the building in question to the alleged sub-tenants.
8. Exhibit RX is the copy of the Gazette of India dated December 5, 1964, containing the notification dated November 18, 1964 issued by the Registrar of the Companies, Delhi. As per the said notification, notice was given by the Registrar of the Companies in pursuance of the provisions of Section 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") that the name of M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited has been struck off the register on the said date, i.e., November 18, 1964 and the said company had been dissolved.
9. Under Section 560(5) of the Act, the Registrar of the Companies is empowered to strike off the name of the Company from the register and shall publish notice thereof in the Official Gazette and on the publication of the notice of the Official Gazette, the company shall stand dissolved. However, liability, if any, of every Director etc., shall continue and may be enforced as if the company had not been dissolved. Under Sub-section (6) of Section 560 of the Act, it is provided that the company or any member or creditor of the company feeling aggrieved by the company having been struck off the register, is competent to apply to the Court within 20 years from publication of the notification in the Official Gazette and the Court is competent to restore to the register the name of the company and the Court may also give such other directions as deem fit.
10. In the present case, as referred to above, the Registrar of the Companies, Delhi, had issued the notification dated November 18, 1964 under Section 560(5) of the Act and the said notification was published in the Government of India Gazette on December 5, 1964, copy Exhibit RX. Thus, from the date when the notification was published in the Official Gazette, i.e., December 5, 1964, the name of the company M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited had been struck off from the register and the said company stood dissolved.
11. Once it is held that M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited (the alleged tenant) stood dissolved and its name was struck off from the register under the orders of the Registrar of the Companies, in the year 1964, there would be no occasion for the landlords Smt. Anguri Devi etc., to have filed ejectment petition against M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited and impleading the said company as respondent No. 1 in the ejectment petition and seeking its ejectment from the demised premises. Similarly, after its dissolution in the year 1964 and its name having struck off from the register in the year 1964, there would be no occasion for the company M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited to have sub-let the said premises to the alleged sub-tenants. This is especially so because the landlords Smt. Anguri Devi etc. had filed the ejectment petition before the learned Rent Controller on January 28, 1977 and in the said petition, it was no-where alleged as to when M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited (the alleged tenant) had sublet said premises to the alleged sub-tenants. As per the allegations in the ejectment petition, the previous owners Lakshmi Chand and Tarlochan Lal had sold their 1/2 share in the suit property to Smt. Anguri Devi vide registered sale deed dated May 6, 1974. When Vinod Kumar, husband of Smt. Anguri Devi, appeared in the witness box as AW-5, he stated during cross-examination that at the time when Smt. Anguri Devi had purchased 1/2 share in the property in question (in the year 1974) M/s Navin Bharat Woollen and Cotton Industries (the alleged sub-tenant) was not working in the said premises. He further deposed that M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited had worked at the said premises upto the year 1976. He denied the suggestion that M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited was dissolved for the last 18 years (his statement was recorded on July 28, 1981).
12. In view of the above, it would be clear that as per the case of the landlords themselves, the premises in question was sub-let by the tenant M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited some time after 1974. However, as referred to above, the said company had ceased to exist in the year 1964 itself, inasmuch as the notification issued by the Registrar of the Companies in this regard under Section 560(5) of the Act was published in the Government of India Gazette on December 5, 1964, copy Exhibit RX.
13. Once it was found that the alleged tenant M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited (a juristic person under the Companies Act) had ceased to exist and stood dissolved in the year 1964, the next question that would come up for consideration would be as to whether M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited could sub-let the premises to the alleged sub-tenants some time after 1974 as alleged by the landlords. Secondly, whether the ejectment petition filed by the landlords against M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited as a tenant was maintainable even though the said company had ceased to exist more than 12 years prior to the filing of the ejectment petition. Another question that would come up for consideration is as to whether the present petitioners could be termed as sub-tenants even if the possession of the demised premises had been given to them by one Om Parkash Singla, who was stated to be the Managing Director of M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited and whether it could be said that the present petitioners were the sub-tenants under M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited which was the tenant of the other demised premises.
14. Once it is found that the tenant M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited had ceased to exist and stood dissolved in the year 1964, in my opinion, it could not be said that the said tenant M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited had sub-let the premises to the alleged sub-tenants, who are the petitioners in the present revision petition. If is a third person, who is not the tenant in the premises in question has handed over the possession of the demised premises to other persons, in my opinion, it could not be said that those persons who have taken the possession of the demised premises had become sub-tenants, especially when the tenant has not sub-let the premises to them. In the present case, under such circumstances, the possession of the present petitioners (the alleged sub-tenants) may be that of trespassers or otherwise, but by no stretch of imagination, they could be termed as sub-tenants, especially when they were never inducted in the premises in question by tenant M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited.
15. Under the provisions of the Haryana Act, the landlords could seek the ejectment of the tenant on various grounds including the grounds of sub-tenancy. For seeking the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of sub-tenancy, the landlord is required to prove that he had given the premises on rent to the tenant and that the tenant had sub-let the same to the sub-tenant and had parted with possession thereof. In the present case, the landlords have miserably failed to prove that M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited continued to be a tenant under the landlords after it had ceased to exist and stood dissolved by virtue of notification under Section 560(5) of the Act, which was published in the Government of India Gazette on December 5, 1964, copy Exhibit Ex. Under such circumstances, the landlords could not have filed the ejectment petition impleading M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited as respondent no. I on that ground that the said company was the tenant of the landlords. Furthermore, as referred to above, in the present case, the landlords have failed to prove that M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited had sub-let the premises to the present petitioners (the alleged sub-tenants). Under these circumstances, merely because the present petitioners are in possession of the demised premises, in my opinion, it could not be said that they are the sub-tenants of M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited. As referred to above, even if Om Parkash Singla had given the possession of the demised premises to the present petitioners (after the notification, the company ceased to exist in 1964), it would not prove that the present petitioners had become the sub-tenants of M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited. In my opinion, the question of sub-tenancy arises only if the tenant had sub-let the premises to the sub-tenants.
16. In the present case, M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited did not exist at the, time when the present petition was filed. Under these circumstances, it would be said that the petition for the ejectment was filed by the landlords against a dead person, inasmuch as M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited being a juristic person, stood dissolved in the year 1964 and would be presumed to be dead. After more than 12 years, the ejectment petition could not be filed against the said company. Furthermore, the landlords have failed to prove that M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited (the tenant) had sub-let the premises to the alleged sub-tenants. In my opinion, it could not be said that the present rent petition seeking ejectment of the tenant and the alleged sub-tenants from the demised premises on the ground of sub-letting was maintainable. In my opinion, this ground would not be available to the landlords in the rent petition. As referred to above, under such circumstances the alleged sub-tenants may be termed as ires-passers but not as sub-tenants.
17. The landlords could seek ejectment of the tenant and the sub-tenants on the ground of sub-tenancy only when they are able to show that the premises in question was sub-let by the tenant to the sub-tenants. In the present case, the tenant ceased to exist in the year 1964. Under such circumstances, even if the present petitioners are in possession of the demised premises, it could not be said that they were sub-tenants under tenant M/s Upper India Woollen Mills Limited, especially when, admittedly, they came in possession of the demised premises some time after 1974.
18. In view of the above detailed discussion, I reverse the findings of the Courts below under issue No.l in respect of the question regarding sub-letting,
19. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the Courts below had erred in law in ordering the ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was submitted that the rent was tendered by the alleged sub-tenants but the same was not accepted by the landlords. It was submitted that under such circumstances, the order of ejectment could not be made on the ground of non-payment of rent. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as Smt. Pushpa Devi and Ors. v. Milkhi Ram, 1990 (1) Rent Control Reporter 334 and the law laid down by this Court in the case reported as Babu Ram (dead) and Ors. v. Sh. Mulkha Singh 2 (1992-2)102 The Punjab Law Reporter, 504.
20. There is a considerable force in this submission of the learned counsel for the present petitioners. In para 17 of the judgment of the trial Court, it was mentioned that no tender was made by respondent No. 1 (tenant) whereas the tender was made by the other respondents (the alleged sub-tenants) and as such, the respondents were liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent because the landlords were not under obligation to accept the rent from third person, who had no right to tender the rent.
21. In Smt. Pushpa Devi's case (supra), it Was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the tender made on behalf of the tenant arid the alleged sub-tenants, was valid. It was further held that the contention that the rent could validly be tendered by the tenant alone, was not tenable. Similar view was taken by this Court, in Babu Ram's case (supra). It was held that the benefit of tendering the rent could be availed of not only by the tenant but also by those who claim to be the tenant.
22. In view of the law laid down in the above said authorities, in my opinion, the Courts below were not justified in ordering the ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. Hence, the findings of the Courts below on this point are also reversed.
23. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the present petitioners that the Courts below had erred in law in ordering the ejectment on the ground of impairing the value or utility of the premises in question. It was submitted that some pillars had been erected in the open for the purpose of putting a tirpal over those pillars. It was submitted that the erection of the pillars in the open by itself could not be made a ground for ordering the ejectment on the ground that the value or utility of the building had been impaired. Reliance has been placed on Bhupinder Singh and anther v. J.L.Kapoor, (1992-2)102 the Punjab Law Reporter 218; Bir Devinder Singh v. Mangat Ram, (1995-1)109 the Punjab Law Reporter, 728; Sadhu Ram v. Niranjan Dass and Anr. (1983)85 the Punjab Law Reporter 673 and Smt. Samitri Devi v. Karam Singh (1997-1)115 P.L.R. 192, There is a considerable force in this submission as well of the learned counsel for the petitioners. As referred to above, the case of the landlords was that some pillars were erected in the open land for the purpose of putting a tirpal. Even if it is found that those pillars had been erected in the open land, in my opinion, it could not be said that it would impair the value or utility of the premises in question nor the ejectment order could be passed on that ground.
25. In Smt. Samitri Devi's case (supra) it was held by this Court that the tenant had constructed nine pillars and six feet high wall. The roof was made of wooden logs and rafters and easily removable without damage to property. Under those circumstances, it could not be said that the construction impaired the value or utility of the property in question and the tenant was not liable to ejectment. Similarly, in Bir Devinder Singh's case (supra), it was found by this Court that the construction raised by the tenant was in the form of tin shed which he had put in front of the shop. It was held that this did not amount to material impairment.
26. In Bhupinder Sigh's case (supra), it was held by this Court that the landlord is required to prove that the tenant had not only made alterations, but the landlord is also required to prove that the alterations had materially impaired the value or utility of the demised premises.
27. In Sadhu Rams's case (supra), it was held by this Court that where the tenant had made additions and alterations, the landlord is required to prove that those additions and alterations had materially impaired the value or utility of the demised premises.
28. In the present case, the landlords have miserably failed to prove the erection of a few pillars in the open land had materially impaired the value of utility of the building in question. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the order of ejectment could not be passed on the ground that the value or utility of the building had been materially impaired. Accordingly, I reverse the findings of the Courts below even on this ground.
29. No other point has been urged before me in this revision petition. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed. The orders passed by the Courts below are set aside and the ejectment petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.