Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Cenlub Engineers vs Master Nimit on 20 February, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Civil Revision No. 433 of 2005 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 433 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.2.2014.
M/s Cenlub Engineers .......Petitioner
Versus
Master Nimit .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
SABINA, J.
Respondent had filed the petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent.
Petitioner, in its reply, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further averred that the respondent was not the owner of the property in question. It was averred that the lease deed dated 1.12.1986 was bogus document and was liable to be declared as null and void.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-
1. Whether the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner vide lease deed dated 1.12.86 on the monthly rent of Rs. 1600/- as alleged ? OPP
2. Whether the respondent has failed to pay the arrears of Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.25 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 433 of 2005 (O&M) -2- rent from April 2001 to November 2002, if so, to what effect? OPP
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD
4. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition ? OPD
5. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition ? OPD
6. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the present petition ? OPD
7. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder and non-
joinder of necessary parties? OPD
8. Relief.
Rent Controller vide order dated 9.9.2004 allowed the ejectment petition. The said judgment was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 6.12.2004. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-tenant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside as the Rent Controller had failed to assess the provisional rent in terms of decision of the Apex Court in 'Rakesh Wadhawan versus M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002(2) RentLR 36'. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on 'Gurpreet Singh and another versus Brijinder Bhardwaj and another, 2011(3) PLR 212 to support his arguments that the Rent Controller was duty bound to assess the provisional rent.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that since the petitioner had disputed the Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.25 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 433 of 2005 (O&M) -3- relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the Rent Controller was not required to assess the provisional rent. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on 'Mrs. Preeti Versus Manmohan Singh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 185, wherein it was held as under:-
"The aforementioned contention, in my considered opinion is without merit. Where a tenant, proceeds to dispute the locus standi or the ownership of the landlord and thereupon denies the relationship of landlord and tenant, such a tenant in essence, asserts a positive plea of refusal to tender rent. Whether such a tenant would be entitled to the protection of Section 13 of the Act, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) has been answered in a host of judgements by this Court, namely; Ramanand Shastri V. Gian Singh (supra). A relevant extract from the aforementioned judgment would be appropriate :
"I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the tenant- petitioner and am of the view that the same are devoid of merit. The first submission that the tenant- petitioner was entitled to an order of assessment by the Rent Controller in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wahdawan (supra) would not require any detailed consideration because in cases where the tenant disputes the relationship of landlord and tenant it is not expected of the Rent Controller to pass an Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.25 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 433 of 2005 (O&M) -4- assessment order of rent directing the tenant to pay that rent. In such cases, exercise to be taken by the Rent Controller would be futile and would rather go contrary to the stand of the parties. After all framing of assessment order is not a mere ritual by the Rent Controller that in every case the Rent Controller must pass such an order. Moreover, even if the Rent Controller passes such an order and the tenant maintains his stand of denying the relationship then he cannot be asked to pay the rent. It would also be unjust that the tenant would first get the finding of subsisting relationship and then deposit the rent. Such a course would also be unfair and unjust to the landlord-respondent. Therefore, I have no hesitation in rejecting the first argument raised by the learned counsel."
In the present case, the question that requires consideration is only to the effect as to whether the Rent Controller was required to assess the provisional rent or not.
Case of the respondent was that the premises in question had been rented out to the petitioner vide lease deed dated 1.12.1986 at a monthly rent of ` 1600/-. However, the petitioner was in arrears of rent with effect from April 2001 to November 2002 and, therefore, was liable to be ejected.
Para Nos. 1 to 3 of the written statement read as under:-
1. That the contents of para No. 1 of the petition are totally wrong, false, incorrect and hence denied. It is Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.25 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 433 of 2005 (O&M) -5- submitted that there does not exist any relationship as lessor and lessee between the parties as the petitioner has never been owners of the said property. There is no any sale deed or mutation etc. in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner with the malafide motive, illegally and fraudulently showed himself to be the owners of the said property while he is no more owner of the said property while M/s Gupta Construction Company claims to be the owner of the said property.
The respondent requested the petitioner to show the ownership proof of the said property but he could not show any proof of ownership so there does not exist relationship as lessor and lessee between the petitioner and the respondent.
2. That the contents of para No. 2 of the petition are wrong, false, incorrect and hence denied. It is submitted that the respondent is owner in possession of the said plot. Site plan of the said plot is enclosed herewith the written statement. It is wrong to allege that the said plot belongs to the petitioner. The respondent as well as M/s Gupta Construction Company are the owners of the said plot.
3. That the contents of para No. 3 of the petition are also wrong, false, incorrect and hence denied. It is wrong to say that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent as alleged. Thus, in the present case, respondent had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In these Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.25 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 433 of 2005 (O&M) -6- circumstances, in view of the decision of Mrs. Preeti's case (supra), the Rent Controller was not required to assess the provisional rent. Hence, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rent Controller had failed to assess the provisional rent is liable to be rejected.
After going through the evidence led by the parties on record, both the Courts have held that execution of the lease deed had been duly admitted by the petitioner but the petitioner had taken up the plea that it was result of misrepresentation. However, the said plea had not been established on record by the petitioner. Since the petitioner was found to be in arrears of rent, the Courts below had rightly ordered the ejectment of the petitioner.
On 25.2.2005, following order was passed by this Court:-
"A perusal of the office report shows that notice issued to the respondent has not been received back served or otherwise. Let fresh notice be issued to the respondent for 11.7.2005.
In terms of the order dated 20.1.2005 passed by this Court, the petitioner has submitted two bank drafts No. 762933 dated 19.2.2005 for a sum of Rs. 44,700/- and No. 762934 dated 19.2.2005 for a sum of Rs. 32,000/- drawn at State Bank of India, Chandigarh. The same have been kept by the Bench Secretary which are to be kept in the safe custody of the Registrar (Judicial), to be delivered to the respondent when he appears. Interim order to continue till further orders."
The amount deposited by the petitioner which is lying Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.25 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 433 of 2005 (O&M) -7- with the Registry is ordered to be released to the respondent forthwith.
No ground of interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE February 20, 2014 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.25 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh