Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gautam vs Daljit Kaur Dhillon & Another on 6 July, 2018
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Civil Revision No.4247 of 2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.4247 of 2018 (O&M)
Date of Order: 06.07.2018
Gautam
..Petitioner
Versus
Daljit Kaur and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Nitesh Garg, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
This revision petition was heard on 06.07.2018 and dismissed. This Court now proceeds to record its reasons.
Tenant-petitioner is in the revision petition against the order passed by the appellate authority, Chandigarh, evicting the petitioner from the premises in question. In fact, this petition is a proxy litigation being fought by the petitioner at the behest of Gurpreet Singh and Cap. Amarjit Singh Dhillon. Some facts would be necessary to understand the controversy.
Smt. Jagir Kaur wife of Arjan Singh Dhillon inherited the house bearing No.222, Sector 16A, Chandigarh, after the death of her husband on the basis of a Will-testamentary document. Thus, Smt. Jagir Kaur Dhillon became owner. She executed a registered Will on 12.04.1999 in favour of Daljit Kaur Dhillon, the daughter, her sister 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 09:31:24 ::: Civil Revision No.4247 of 2018 (O&M) -2- Paramjit Kaur Dhillon and Master Gurpreet Singh son of Amarjit Singh Dhillon (grand son). The annex portion of the house in which petitioner is a tenant was bequeathed in favour of landlady i.e. Daljit Kaur Dhillon.
Litigation with regard to the validity of the Will is pending in this Court, however, the learned trial Court as well as the first appellate court have already upheld the registered Will dated 12.04.1999. Smt. Jagir Kaur Dhillon had let out annex portion, which is an independent set situated on the ground floor of the premises in question to respondent no.1 vide rent agreement dated 01.09.2002 on a monthly rent of Rs.4500/- plus Rs.200/- on account of water charges. After the death of Smt. Jagir Kaur, respondent-landlady became owner of the premises. Subsequently, respondent no.2 joined petitioner no.1. In a previous litigation, respondent no.2 was held to be tenant of the property. The rent petition was filed on the ground that the rent has not been paid with effect from 01.04.2004. It was further pleaded that the respondent-petitioner has sub-let the premises to Harjap Singh and Sachind Bhandari without written consent of the petitioner and thus the petitioner and the proforma respondents are liable to be ejected.
Respondent no.1 did not appear, however, respondent no.2- petitioner herein contested the rent petition and pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further pleaded by the respondent that he has been regularly paying rent to his landlord i.e. Amarjit Singh Dhillon.
On careful examination of the pleadings, it is apparent that the testamentary document executed by Smt. Jagir Kaur, mother of the landlady has not been disputed and denied by the petitioner, thus, she has become 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 09:31:24 ::: Civil Revision No.4247 of 2018 (O&M) -3- owner of the property and as such landlady. It is well settled that a tenant is not entitled to challenge the validity of the Will executed by the original owner. The testamentary document can only be challenged by the successors. Respondent no.2-petitioner is only a tenant. Respondent no.2 cannot be permitted to take benefit of the litigation pending between the brothers and sisters with regard to validity of the Will. Petitioner is bound to pay the rent to the landlord. As per Section 2(c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949, 'landlord' means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent. In the present case, it is the landlady who is entitled to receive the rent, however, rent has not been paid by the petitioner.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the previous litigation, when the petitioner filed a civil suit, respondent-landlady had taken a stand that the petitioner herein is not a tenant in the premises. He submitted that, therefore, no eviction was maintainable against the petitioner.
It may be noticed that the plaintiff in her petition itself had pleaded that in the earlier suit filed by the petitioner, first appellate court had held the petitioner to be tenant over the premises in dispute. In such circumstances, earlier stand taken by the respondent-landlady now cannot be permitted to be used to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant.
Next submission of learned senior counsel is that sub-tenants have not been impleaded as party and, therefore, was not maintainable.
It may be noticed that the alleged sub-tenants are not before the Court. It is the petitioner who is claiming to be in continuous possession. Petitioner has already been held tenant. In such circumstances, petitioner was liable to pay the rent, which he has failed.
3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 09:31:24 ::: Civil Revision No.4247 of 2018 (O&M) -4- Further, the petitioner even now asserts that his landlord is Amarjit Singh Dhillon. It is not in dispute that Amarjit Singh Dhillon is not one of the owners of the property in dispute as per the testamentary document upheld by the learned Civil Judge as well as in the first appeal. As per the testamentary document executed by Smt. Jagir Kaur dated 12.04.1999, specific share has been given to two daughters and a grand son. The aforesaid testamentary document has been upheld by the two courts. In such circumstances, petitioner cannot be permitted to assert that Amarjit Singh Dhillon, is his landlord. It is clear that the petitioner is playing in the hands of Amarjit Singh Dhillon, who is in litigation with his sisters. Petitioner as noted above, is fighting a proxy litigation and trying to take benefit of the dispute between the legal heirs of the landlady.
Petitioner has also filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner wishes to lead in additional evidence one written statement filed by defendant no.3 and two affidavits allegedly sworn in by Gurpreet Singh Dhillon and Amarjit Singh Dhillon.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the application for additional evidence is wholly malafide. In the affidavits, Gurpreet Singh Dhillon and Amarjit Singh Dhillon claiming to be co-owners in the property and do not wish to eject the petitioner.
Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the testamentary document, 3 legal heirs including landlady had become co- owner and, therefore, once one of the co-owner is disputing the eviction then the petition was not maintainable.
It may be noted that the petitioner is taking this stand for the 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 09:31:24 ::: Civil Revision No.4247 of 2018 (O&M) -5- first time in the revision petition, which cannot be permitted. The petitioner did not take this stand in his written statement. Even before the first appellate court, the petitioner did not object to the eviction petition on this ground. As far as written statement, which is sought to be produced as additional evidence, is dated 26.05.2006. It was filed in a suit filed by the petitioner. Hence, this written statement was in the knowledge of the petitioner. In any case, after the order has been passed by the appellate authority in the previous round that the petitioner is a tenant, even if written statement is allowed to be read in evidence, it would not improve the case of the petitioner. Hence, the application for additional evidence is dismissed.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the alternative submitted that in Chandigarh, the property cannot be divided and, therefore, even if as per the testamentary document executed by Smt. Jagir Kaur, specific portion has been assigned in favour of different legal heirs. Still all the beneficiaries of the Will would become co-owners of the property.
This court has considered the argument. For the purpose of eviction of a tenant, it is sufficient to notice that annexed portion of House No.l222, Sector 16A, Chandigarh, has been bequeathed in favour of landlady-respondent and, therefore, the landlady-respondent is entitled to receive the rent, which admittedly has not been paid.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is dismissed.
July 06, 2018 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2018 09:31:24 :::