Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Sharma vs Gurinder Singh & Others on 5 March, 2013
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CR No.947 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.947 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: March , 2013
Anil Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
Gurinder Singh & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sharan Sethi, Advocate for the respondents.
Rajan Gupta, J.(oral)
Demised premises i.e. House No.1278, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh was let out by Mohinder Kaur to Suresh Mehrotra on 10.3.1978. Mohinder Kaur died on 17.10.1988. After her death her son and grand son claimed that they had become owners by virtue of an unregistered Will executed by Mohinder Kaur. Respondents claim that Suresh Mehrotra initially kept his residence in the premises but later set up an office of Chartered Accountant. In the year 1998 he handed over possession of the premises to Anil Sharma (petitioner herein). Respondents sought eviction of petitioner from the premises on three grounds i.e. subletting, change of user and non-payment of rent. According to them, Anil Sharma had shifted his residence to House No.217, Sector 2, Panchkula and was using the premises only as CR No.947 of 2011 2 an office. They also alleged non-payment of rent after death of Mohinder Kaur. Rent Controller framed issues in the matter regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, whether tenant was liable to be ejected on ground of non-payment of rent, change of user or subletting. During trial petitioners examined a witness Kuldeep Singh Chandpuri as PW1 and a clerk from Estate Office. Respondents examined a Computer Operator from a bank and petitioner himself stepped into the witness-box. On issue No.1, Rent Controller held that petitioners had failed to prove that they were landlords of the premises. Findings on issues No.2, 3 & 4 were likewise. Eviction petition was, thus, dismissed. Respondents filed appeal before the Appellate Authority at Chandigarh. Before the Appellate Authority, the landlords did not press the issue of non-payment of rent. On the question of subletting of the premises by original tenant in favour of petitioner, it affirmed the finding of the trial court. However, it found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and tenants had changed the user of premises. Thus, they were liable to eviction. Aggrieved, present petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there was nothing to show that petitioners had become owners of the property. In fact, there was dispute amongst them regarding ownership of the demised premises. According to him, finding of the Appellate Authority on the ground of change of user is absolutely unsustainable.
Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that a valid Will was executed by Mohinder Kaur in favour of CR No.947 of 2011 3 respondent/landlords and property had been entered in their name on basis of same. There can, thus, be no dispute regarding the fact that respondents are landlords being owners of the property. Petitioner had shifted his residence to Panchkula and was running only a Chartered Accountant office in the premises. As the property was originally rented out for residential purpose, he had changed user thereof. Appellate Authority had rightly ordered ejectment.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
It is clear that originally the premises was let out by Mohinder Kaur in the year 1978 to respondent No.1 Suresh Mehrotra. Document Ex.P2 was produced on record to show that after death of Mohinder Kaur, demised premises was transferred in the name of son and grand son of Mohinder Kaur. Witness Brg. Kuldeep Singh Chandpuri appeared as PW1. He deposed that Mohinder Kaur expired on 17.10.1988. Before her death, she had executed a unregistered Will bequeathing the house to the respondents. Original Will was submitted to the Estate Office, Chandigarh. On the basis of same, property had been entered in the name of the respondents. One rent note Ex.P3 was produced on record by this witness. Same was executed by Suresh Mehrotra in favour of Mohinder Kaur. Suresh Mehrotra died during the proceedings. However, petitioner appeared as RW2 and did not deny execution of said rent note. Appellate Authority, thus, relied on the document and found that same was duly executed. It found that property had been mutated in the name of respondents by CR No.947 of 2011 4 Estate Officer. Thus, there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. While considering the issue pertaining to change of user, it referred to testimony of Kuldeep Singh Chandpuri who stated that petitioner had shifted his residence to House No.217, Sector 2, Panchkula. He was merely using the premises for the purpose of running an office. Petitioner who filed his affidavit Ex.RW2/A took the stand that demised premises was residential in nature but from very beginning it was being used partly for the purpose of office. He admitted that he had resided there till 1982. After his marriage, he found accommodation insufficient and shifted. In his cross-examination he admitted that Suresh Mehrotra, to whom premises was originally rented, had shifted to Delhi in the year 1986. Thus, Appellate Authority found that premises was not being used for residential purposes either by original tenant or by the petitioner. Petitioner also admitted in his cross-examination that his employees were living in their respective houses. After office hours a lock was put on the premises. One key was kept by petitioner and another by Manager of the company. On the basis of this evidence, Appellate Authority found that demised premises was being used only for the purpose of running the office of Chartered Accountant. It was not being used for the purpose, it was originally let out. It, thus, ordered eviction of the petitioner. There is no infirmity with the order passed by the appellate authority. In fact, petitioner while appearing as RW2 clearly stated that he was registered as Chartered Accountant in 1980 only. Thereafter, he became partner of firm Mehrotra Sharma & Associates in the same year. In his cross-examination he admitted that he CR No.947 of 2011 5 was never tenant in premises in personal capacity. He also accepted execution of rent note Ex.P3 between Mohinder Kaur and Suresh Mehrotra. He also admitted that he was not practicing as Chartered Accountant at the time of inception of tenancy in the year 1978. He passed the examination only in July, 1980 and was not entitled to practice till September, 1980. In his cross-examination he further stated that he was getting a salary from respondent No.1 Suresh Mehrotra, original tenant in the premises. He further deposed that after institution of ejectment petition he came to know that building in question had been mutated in favour of respondents. In view of deposition of petitioner it is clear that he claims to be in legitimate possession of the premises by virtue of being partner of firm Mehrotra Sharma & Associates. Admittedly, he is not residing there at the moment. Change of user is, thus, established. No interference in revisional jurisdiction is called for. Petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. C.M. No.12294-CII of 2011:
There is no merit in the application for leading additional evidence. It will only delay the proceedings further. Rent petition remained pending since the year 1999. This evidence was never brought on record. Prayer to lead additional evidence at this stage is untenable and is rejected.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
March , 2013
'rajpal'