Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar & Ors vs Balbir Singh on 14 September, 2012
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
CR No.5345 of 2012(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CR No.5345 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision:-14.09.2012
Pawan Kumar & Ors.
......Petitioners.
Versus
Balbir Singh.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Sunil K. Chaudhary, Advocate for the Petitioner.
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.
Lrs of Ram Rakha(tenant) have filed the present revision petition under Section 18-A (8) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949(hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the impugned order of eviction dated 17.02.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh under Section 13-A of the Act from the premises measuring 5 marlas situated on the ground floor of house no.1108, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh on the ground of personal necessity.
Facts in brief are that respondent(landlord)-Balbir Singh filed a petition under Section 13-A of the Act against tenant Ram Rakha on the ground that the same was required by him for his own use and CR No.5345 of 2012(O&M) #2# occupation. It was stated that respondent Balbir Singh along with his brother Darshan Singh become owners of the house in question on the basis of a registered Will executed by their father in their favour. The landlord had further averred that he was employed(at the time of filing of petition) as Assistant Inspector General of Police, CISF under the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and is posted in DAE, Zonal headquarters ECIL, Hyderabad, and is to retire on 31.08.2010 after attaining the age of superannuation. Thus he stated that the requirements under law of being a specified landlord as envisaged under Section 13-A of the Act are complete and the present premises be vacated as he requires the same for accommodation of himself, his children as well as grandchildren.
Upon notice, petitioner(tenant) appeared and denied all the averments as mentioned in the petition and also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant among the parties. He also alleged that the landlord- Balbir Singh does not fall under the purview of Section 13-A of the Act and thus the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Replication was filed wherein the entire contents of the petition were reiterated and that of the written statement were denied.
From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides lead their evidence in support of their respective claims and after appreciating their evidence learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide its order dated 17.02.2012. Hence the present revision petition.
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance.
CR No.5345 of 2012(O&M) #3# Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that while recording the findings of ejectment against the petitioner, learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh has ignored the facts, evidence and law applicable thereto that a specified landlord would be entitled to ejectment of his tenant only if he can satisfy the rent controller that he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area concerned in which he intends to reside. It was further argued that a petition on the ground of personal necessity among the same parties is already pending before this court as the same landlord/respondent had earlier filed an ejectment petition on the ground of personal necessity which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh and the appeal of the petitioner(tenant) was dismissed. However, the revision filed before this Court bearing no.3451 of 2006 already stands admitted. Hence it was argued that the present petition is barred by principle of resjudicata as two petitions are not maintainable between the parties on the same ground with regard to same premises in dispute.
After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and going through the record this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner(tenant) had denied relationship of landlord and tenant itself. However, a perusal of the judgment Ex.PX shows that the court in the previous proceedings had held in para 16 that a relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and even the witness of the tenant namely RW-1 in that proceeding had admitted in her cross examination that they had paid rent CR No.5345 of 2012(O&M) #4# to the petitioner. Furthermore, the landlord had also proved on record the transfer letter Ex.P-1 whereby it is shown that he is a co-owner of the demised premises along with his brother. Thus it is proved to the hilt that the respondent(landlord) is a co-owner in the property and consequently a landlord for the petitioner. When a tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant itself and his contention is proved to be false, the equity, if any that might lie in his favour also goes and the court has to come down heavily upon such tenants as they are denying very basis upon which they had entered into the property and thus creating difficulty for the landlord.
In the present case, the learned Rent Controller has rightly held that a specified landlord would mean a person who is entitled to receive the rent in respect of building in his own account and who is holding or has held appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or State in the matter of recovery of possession of residential or scheduled building. It is evident from letter Ex.P-3 as well as notifications Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/B that the landlord was government servant and has since retired on attaining superannuation. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the landlord has been able to prove that he is a specified landlord as provided under Section 13-A of the Act and hence he is entitled to maintain the petition.
Coming to the ground as to the mentioning of the fact that the landlord is required to plead specifically that he does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area concerned, this Court is of the opinion that perusal of paragraph no.8 of Annexure P-
CR No.5345 of 2012(O&M) #5# 1 i.e. the petition filed by the landlord under Section 13-A of the Act shows that the petitioner had specifically stated that he does not own or possess any other suitable residential accommodation in the urban area of Chandigarh and has neither occupied nor vacated any other suitable accommodation within the urban area of Chandigarh without any sufficient cause. In view of the specific averment in the petition itself, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner(tenant) to say that the respondent(landlord) has not pleaded the fact in the petition under Section 13-A. Even otherwise, it is settled position of law that the substance and tenure of the petition is important and the meaning has to be gauged from the entire pleadings and not from the specific words that might not have occurred in it. However, as observed earlier in the present case, the landlord had specifically averred of not having owned or possess any other suitable accommodation.
The next limb of argument regarding the present petition being barred by resjudicata is also devoid of merit and the same is liable to be rejected outrightly for the simple reason that the cause of action of both the cases is completely different and the same cannot be compared with each other to be on the same footing. The provision of Section 13-A of the Act, is a special enactment by the Legislature so as to facilitate the government employees who are about to superannuate from their job whereas, the petition under Section 13 is for ejectment on various grounds mentioned therein which is on a completely different footing. Thus, by no stretch of imagination it can be stated that the present petition filed by the landlord under Section 13-A of the Act is barred by CR No.5345 of 2012(O&M) #6# principle of resjudicata.
In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE September 14, 2012 Vinay