Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prakashan vs Neelam Goyal And Ors on 24 December, 2014
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
CR No.5164 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.5164 of 2014
Date of decision:24.12.2014
Prakashan
....Petitioner
Versus
Neelam Goyal & others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.Jaideep Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Ravinder Rana, Advocate, for the respondents.
****
G.S.Sandhawalia J.
Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant against the concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby she had been ordered to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide order dated 16.07.2013, which order has been upheld by the Appellate Authority on 14.05.2014.
The case of the respondent-landladies is that they were co-owners of the property purchased on 27.12.2005 from Brij Lal and Pawan Kumar. The intimation of sale had been communicated to the petitioner-tenant so that the rent @ Rs.1500/- per month and arrears could be paid to them which were w.e.f. 14.10.1998. The second ground was that the premises were old and in dilapidated condition and unfit and unsafe for human habitation which could affect the lives of persons living in the premises and adjacent neighbours. The petitioner wanted to reconstruct that building to avoid any loss of life.
The rent petition was defended on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties and the petitioner had no SAILESH RANJAN 2014.12.31 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.5164 of 2014 -2- locus standi to file the petition. The sale deed was a sham transaction and not executed by the previous owners. The answering respondents were not tenants in the premises and they had never paid rent to anybody and therefore, they were not liable to pay rent, as claimed. The submission that the premises being old and in dilapidated condition was denied. The following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:
"Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPP Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent, if so, at what rate and from which date? OPP Whether the tenanted premise is in dilapidated condition? OPP Whether present petition is not maintainable? OPR Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR Relief."
The landladies examined Sanjeev Raj Goyal as PW1 and Brij Lal, one of the previous owner, as PW2 and one building expert, Jai Bhagwan as PW3 whereas the petitioner examined Prem Kumar as RW1.
The Rent Controller noticed the registered sale deeds (Exhibits P2 & P3) and the fact that Brij Lal had appeared as PW2 and stated that property had been sold in favour of the landladies. The tenant herself had never appeared in the witness box and only her son, Prem Prakash had appeared and in his cross, he had admitted that when his father was alive, he used to live in the premises as a tenant. The Rent Controller also noticed that the son of the tenant had stated that he was residing in House No.1194, Mori Gate, Manimajra but had not taken the plea that he had no concern with the demised premises and that he was not in occupation of the same. However, the fact remained that they continued to contest the rent petition for the last 5 years and his claim was that he did not know as to who is the owner of the demised premises. Accordingly, the issue of SAILESH RANJAN 2014.12.31 12:32 relationship of landlord-tenant was decided in favour of the respondents. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.5164 of 2014 -3- Resultantly, the arrears of rent from 27.12.2005 the date of purchase of the property was held in favour of the respondents as the tenant had denied the relationship and it was, accordingly, held that no opportunity could be given to the tenant to tender the rent in view of the law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002 (1) RCR 514. The finding regarding the building becoming unfit and unsafe was decided against the landlady on the ground that the age of the building in question had not been given and neither the statement of the occupier had been recorded.
The Appellate Authority further again noticed that the tenant had not stated that she was in possession and that late Beli Ram, the husband held the premises as a tenant @ Rs.75/- per month. Reliance has been placed upon the statement of Brij Lal that this property had been sold to the respondents. Accordingly, noticing that the petitioner was wife of Beli Ram and tenancy was heritable, the eviction order was upheld.
Notice of motion was issued on 11.08.2014, on the limited issue that time would be granted for vacation of the demised premises. Thereafter, this Court, on 18.12.2014, directed that let the necessary affidavit be filed as to how much time the petitioner would take to vacate the premises. Thereafter, when the case was taken up, counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was not residing at the premises in question and was residing at House No.1194, Mori Gate, Manimajra, therefore, the affidavit could not be filed.
The facts have already been noticed in detail above. The respondents have been held to be the owners by virtue of registered sale deed dated 27.12.2005. It has also come on record that the son of the original tenant who had appeared as attorney of his mother and deposed that his father was living as a tenant in the premises in question. The Appellate Authority has SAILESH RANJAN rightly noticed that the tenancy is heritable and thus, the status, as such, of the 2014.12.31 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.5164 of 2014 -4- petitioner continues to be that of a tenant and the issues has rightly been decided in favour of the respondents. The ejectment application was filed on the ground of non-payment of rent and the rent has not been paid by the petitioner since the relationship itself was denied. It is settled principle of law that once the relationship of landlord-tenant is denied, then no opportunity of tendering rent is to be granted. The Rent Controller was well justified in relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan (supra).
In Hukma Devi Vs. Davinder Dass 2003 (2) RCR 771 and Ramanand Shastri Vs. Gian Singh 2003 (3) CCC 62 has held that the tenant takes a risk in denying the relationship. This Court in Raghbir Singh Vs. Sansar Chand 2004 (3) PLR 841 and Sandeep Sahi 2010 (4) PLR 630 held that once the petitioner has chosen to take the risk of denying the relationship, no further opportunity is to be granted for payment of rent. Accordingly, no time is required to be given to the petitioner-tenant, as admittedly, she is not residing at the premises in question.
The Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 has also held that this Court is not sitting as a Court of appeal and only has to see whether the Court below had exercised jurisdiction vested in them by law and there was no jurisdictional error, before interfering in the decisions of the authorities below.
Accordingly, keeping in view the settled position of law, this Court is of the opinion that the concurrent findings are not liable to be interfered in any manner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed.
24.12.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
sailesh JUDGE
SAILESH RANJAN
2014.12.31 12:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document