Himachal Pradesh High Court
Cmpmo No.536/2024 vs B.K. Singh Chadha on 17 December, 2024
2024:HHC:14762 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.536/2024.
Reserved on:11.12.2024
Date of Decision: 17.12.2024
Rakeshwar Lall Sood .....Petitioner
Versus
B.K. Singh Chadha ....Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Akansha Verma and Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocates, for the respondent.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).
The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 22.05.2024. Vide the said order, eleven issues were framed in the case at hand. Petitioner is aggrieved with framing of the following issues:-
"7. Whether the petitioner is neither owner nor landlord of the demises premises, as per the GLR-1 maintained by Cantonment Board, Kasauli, as alleged? OPR
8. Whether the petitioner is wrongly claiming and collecting rent from the respondent? OPR
9. Whether the respondent is paying conservancy taxes and water taxes regularly to Cantonment Board, Kasauli? OPR 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2024:HHC:14762
10. Whether the respondent had paid rent up to 30-06-2020 to petitioner and the petitioner thereafter refused to receive rent from respondent and demanded enhanced rent from the respondent, as alleged? OPR
11. Whether the petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties? OPR"
2. In order to demonstrate that the aforesaid issues do not arise for consideration in the case at hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the relevant portion of the rent petition (Annexure P-1), specifically to content of serial number 3 thereof, which deals with the details of the landlord in the case at hand. Annexure P-2 is the reply filed to the eviction petition. Attention is specifically invited to page 22 of the paper book i.e. Internal Page-3 of the reply, wherein, in response to contents of serial No.3, which deals with the details of the landlord, the respondent has categorically averred that the petitioner was wrongly posing himself to be the landlord and collecting rent from the respondent.
3. Other than the aforesaid, at page 28 of the paper book i.e. Internal Page-9 of the reply filed to the rent petition, a categoric averment has been made by the present respondent that rent has been paid to the petitioner till 30.06.2000. The same has been done in 3 2024:HHC:14762 cash on the request of the petitioner. No receipt qua the same has been issued in favour of the respondent by the petitioner.
4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the HP Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, specifically Section 2(d) thereof, which defines the expression 'landlord'. In the Rent Act it is pointed out that the expression 'landlord' encompasses with its ambit "a person receiving rent for the time being."
5. Besides the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to an application filed under Order 11 Rules 12 & 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC filed by the respondent, wherein certain documents with respect to the title of the suit property had been sought by the respondent.
6. In response to the aforesaid application so filed, the petitioner had filed a detailed reply. Along with the same, a copy of sale deed executed qua the property in question by Lala Gulzari Lal and others in favour of the late father of the petitioner i.e. late Lala Chandu Lal had been placed on record. In order to demonstrate, as to how the property was acquired by the present petitioner, a copy of Will of late Lala Chandu Lal had been appended along with the 4 2024:HHC:14762 reply so filed to the application under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 of the CPC. Probate qua the Will issued by the District Judge, Shimla in Case No.SA2-S/2 of 1977, titled as Rakeshwar Lall Sood and two others Versus General Public had also been placed on record.
7. Besides the aforesaid, property tax bill receipts in the name of the petitioner from time to time in his capacity as the owner of the property in question issued by the Cantonment Board Kasuali, has also been placed on record.
8. When the application under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 of the CPC came up for consideration on 17.09.2022, the present respondent withdrew the application stating therein that he was not pressing the said application.
9. Other than the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanaklata Das v. Naba Kumar Das, 2018 (2) SCC 352. Attention has also been drawn to the provisions of Order 14 Rule 3(b)(c) of the CPC.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the contentions raised by the respondent in reply to the rent petition qua payment of 5 2024:HHC:14762 rent to the petitioner are being mis-construed. As according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while admitting payment of rent to the petitioner, the ownership of the petitioner qua the suit property is denied. Hence, according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, there is a denial of a landlord tenant relationship inter-se the parties.
11. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings appended along with the present petition.
12. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Order 14 Rule 3 (b)(c) of the CPC. The same read as follows:-
"14. Settlement of Issues and Determination of Suit on Issues of Law or on Issues agreed upon
3. Materials from which issues may be framed--The Court may frame the issues from all or any of the following materials:--
(b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit;
(c) the contents of documents produced by either party.
(emphasis supplied)"
13. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that issues, in the case at hand, are to be framed 6 2024:HHC:14762 from allegations made in the pleadings, answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit and from the contents of the documents produced by either party.
14. As has already been stated supra, insofar as the title to the property, in the case at hand is concerned, in response to an application filed under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioner had placed on record, a) sale deed executed by Lala Girdhari Lal and others in favour of the father of the petitioner i.e. late Lala Chandu Lal, b) copy of Will of late Lala Chandu Lal bequeathing the property in question in favour of the present petitioner, c) Probate dated 04.11.1977 of the aforesaid Will issued by the District Judge, Shimla in Case No.SA2-S/2 of 1977, titled as Rakeshwar Lall Sood and two others Versus General Public, d) Property tax bill receipts in the name of the petitioner from time to time in his capacity as the owner of the property by the Cantonment Board Kasauli.
15. Section 2(d) of the HP Urban Rent Control Act defines the expression "landlord". The expression "landlord" encompasses within its ambit "persons receiving rent for the time being." In the reply filed to the rent petition, it is the admitted case of the respondent herein 7 2024:HHC:14762 that they have paid rent to the petitioner up till 30.06.2000 in cash on the request of the petitioner and have not received a receipt qua the same from the petitioner.
16. Other than the aforesaid, Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 creates an estoppel on the tenant to deny the title of the landlord to the immovable property in question during the continuance of the tenancy.
17. The well-settled principles as to what has to be adjudicated in a rent petition have been succintly enumerated in case reported as 2018 (2) SCC 352, titled Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors. The relevant extract whereof is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
"11.1 First, in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (Landlord) against the defendant(Tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties. In other words, in a tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely, the landlord and the tenant.
11.2 Second, the landlord (plaintiff) in such suit is required to plead and prove only two things to enable him to claim a decree for eviction against his tenant from the tenanted suit premises. First, there exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and second, the ground(s) on which the plaintiff- landlord has sought defendant's-tenant's eviction under the Rent Act exists. When these two things are proved, eviction suit succeeds.
11.3 Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The reason being, if the landlord 8 2024:HHC:14762 fails to prove his title to the suit premises but proves the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises and further proves existence of any ground on which the eviction is sought under the Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds. Conversely, if the landlord proves his title to the suit premises but fails to prove the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises, the eviction suit fails. (See- Dr. Ranbir Singh vs. Asharfi Lal.
11.4 Fourth, the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the suit, be that a plaintiff or the defendant, against his wish unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary party to the suit and without his presence, the suit cannot proceed and nor can be decided effectively. In other words, no person can compel the plaintiff to allow such person to become the co-plaintiff or defendant in the suit. It is more so when such person is unable to show as to how he is a necessary or proper party to the suit and how without his presence, the suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or how his presence is necessary for the effective decision of the suit. (See-Ruma Chakraborty vs. Sudha Rani Banerjee & Anr.
11.5 Fifth, a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involvedin the proceeding. (See- Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue).
11.6 Sixth, if there are co-owners or co-landlords of the suit premises then any co-owner or co- landlord can file a suit for eviction against the tenant. In other words, it is not necessary that all the owners/landlords should join in filing the eviction suit against the tenant. (See-Kasthuri Radhakrishnan & Ors. vs. M. Chinniyan & Anr.,"
18. Hence from the aforesaid, it is evident that the question on title is not germane for a decision of the eviction suit. Besides, if there are co-owners and co- 9
2024:HHC:14762 landlords then any co-owner and co-landlord can file suit for eviction against the tenant. It is not necessary for all the co-owners and co-landlords to join in the filing of the eviction suit. Moreover, in an eviction petition, the landlord has to show that there exists a relationship of a landlord and tenant between the parties. Other than the aforesaid, the grounds on which the petitioner/landlord is seeking the eviction of the tenant under the Rent Act need to be enumerated therein. On proving the aforesaid, the eviction petition succeeds.
19. In view of the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the contentions of the respondent. The present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.05.2024 whereby issues have been framed is quashed to the extent of framing of issues No.7 to 11 therein. The same are ordered to be deleted as only issues No.1 to 6 arise for consideration in the case at hand.
20. Parties are directed to appear through their counsel before the learned trial Court on 24.12.2024.
21. The Rent Controller is directed to decide the rent petition within three months from 24.12.2024, in terms of judgment passed in CMPMO No.189 of 2023, decided on 18.01.2024.
10
2024:HHC:14762
22. In view of the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 17th December, 2024 (Gaurav Rawat)