Himachal Pradesh High Court
Snowflake Education Society & Anr vs Shri Raman Khanna on 2 November, 2016
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CMPMO No. 411 of 2016
.
Date of decision: November 2, 2016.
Snowflake Education Society & anr. ......Petitioners.
Versus
Shri Raman Khanna. .....Respondent.
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
rt
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioners : Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondent : Nemo.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Order dated 20.8.2016 passed by learned Rent Controller, Shimla in an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CMA No. 18-6 of 2016) filed in case No. 18-2 of 2013 is under challenge in this petition. The petitioners herein are respondents-tenants before learned Rent Controller.
2. The respondent is the petitioner-landlord. The petitioner-landlord has sought the eviction of the respondents-
tenants on the ground of arrears of rent. The response of the respondents-tenants is that the rent due and admissible is being 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:29:42 :::HCHP 2paid regularly to S/Shri Rohit Khanna and Parbhat Khanna, the co-owners of the demised premises. Not only this, but in reply to .
the eviction petition, the specific objection raised by them reads as follows:
"3. That there is no legal relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, in as much as the of induction of the respondent as tenant is post the appointment of the petitioner as receiver. The respondent society had been inducted as tenant by rt Smt. Vidya Khanna, one of the co-sharers in Regal Building in the year 1992, who was the landlord of the replying respondent and who kept receiving the rent qua the premises during her lifetime whereafter the rent was being paid to her son Sh. Shyam Khanna. There being no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the petition in hand is liable to be dismissed on this short ground."
3. A reference in this regard can also be made to para-2 of the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows:
"2. That the replying respondent/applicant, in his reply has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and has further pleaded that it was inducted as tenant by Late Smt. Vidya Khanna in the year 1992. It has further been averred that after the death of Smt. Vidya Khanna, her son Late Sh. Shyam Khanna was received the rent from the applicant. Sh. Shyam Khanna also died o 14.5.2007 whereafter the rent was being paid to Sh.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:29:42 :::HCHP 3
Jugal Kishore Khanna who was one of the co-sharers in the property. Even Sh. Jugal Kishore has expired .
and after his death, his sons namely Sh. Rohit Khanna and Prabhat Khanna are receiving the rent qua the suit premises from the applicant. The entire upto date rent stands paid by the applicant to the landlords who have never raised any claim qua non payment of rent."
of
4. The record reveals that the response of the petitioner-landlord to such averments in the reply to the eviction rt petition and the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is that he was appointed as receiver by this Court vide order dated 7.6.1984 passed in Civil Suit No. 64 of 1983, title as Raman Khanna versus Vidya Khanna to collect and receive the rent from all the tenants of the building and pay the taxes in respect of the building. Out of the same, said Smt. Vidya Khanna and any other co-owners are not authorized to collect and receive the rent.
5. Anyhow, from the pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller has framed issues on 6.11.2015. An issue with regard to the point in controversy in this petition has also been framed. The job of respondents-tenants is over by taking the option qua the competency and authority of the petitioner to collect the rent and placing on record the facts that they are paying the rent to aforesaid Rohit Khanna and Parbhat Khanna regularly. It is for them to produce evidence in order to substantiate the objection so raised in reply to the eviction ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:29:42 :::HCHP 4 petition. The risk lies with petitioner because if Rohit Khanna and Prabhat Khanna has any authority to receive the rent or they .
are owner of the demised premises it was for him to have impleaded them as party in the petition.
6. In case if ultimately the respondents-tenants are able to show that the petitioner has no authority to receive the rent of and rather the rent is being paid by them regularly to aforesaid Rohit Khanna and Prabhat Khanna in that event the prejudice if rt any is likely to be caused to the case of the petitioner and not to that of the respondents-tenants. Their anxiety as such at this stage is uncalled for. Being so, learned Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the application. The respondents-tenants cannot be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order in any manner whatsoever. I, therefore, find no substance in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand dismissed.
8. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned Rent Controller, Shimla for being placed on record.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.
November 2, 2016, (vs) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:29:42 :::HCHP