Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amar Nath vs T.C. Mittal & Ors on 23 July, 2012
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
C.R. No.4030 of 2012(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.4030 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision:-23.07.2012
Amar Nath.
......Petitioner.
Versus
T.C. Mittal & Ors.
......Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. O.P. Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioner.
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.
Petitioner(tenant) is in revision under Section 15(5) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 against the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below, whereby the petition of the landlord (respondent) on the ground of personal necessity was allowed by the learned Rent controller, Chandigarh vide its order dated 20.07.2009 and the findings thereof have been affirmed in appeal by learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide its order dated 07.06.2012.
Brief facts for proper adjudication of the present revision are that the landlord alleges that he was the owner of the house no.3173, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh by virtue of an agreement to sell executed between him C.R. No.4030 of 2012(O&M) #2# and Surinder Singh son of Tej Singh, general power of attorney of Smt. Shakuntala Rani Chadha, Smt. Kanak Anand and Smt. C.M. Anand(original owners of the house). It was stated that this way, the respondent/landlord had become the owner of the property and, therefore, he is entitled to maintain the present eviction petition. It was further stated that the demised premises was required by the landlord for his own bonafide use and occupation by stating that he and his wife are suffering from various diseases related to old age and are living on rent in house no.2256, first floor accommodation in sector 21, Chandigarh at the payment of Rs.5,000/- as rent. Thus it was stated that the ground floor of the premises in question was required for their own use and occupation.
Upon notice, petitioner(tenant) denied all the allegations of the rent petition and stated that the landlord/respondent is not the owner of the property and, therefore, no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. Further, the tenant denied the necessity of the respondent/landlord in his reply and thus prayer was made for dismissal of the petition.
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 allowed the eviction petition vide its order dated 20.07.2009 and the findings thereof have been affirmed in appeal by learned Appellate authority, Chandigarh vide its order dated 07.06.2012.
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance.
C.R. No.4030 of 2012(O&M) #3# The sole argument raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that on the date of filing of the ejectment petition, the respondent was not the owner-cum-landlord as no sale deed has been executed in his favour and was holder only of a power of attorney executed in his favour by the original owners.
After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant), this Court is of the considered view that the said objection is completely devoid of any merit and hence this argument is liable to be rejected. Admittedly, there is an agreement to sell in favour of the respondent along with general power of attorney which was executed by the original owners in his favour. When a power of attorney as well as an agreement to sell is executed in favour of the person, that person then has an interest in the property concerned as envisaged under Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act. For all intents and purposes such a person becomes the owner of the property and the powers of an owner are transferred in the said person. In the present case also, since the agreement to sell as well as the power of attorney have not been disputed, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the objection that has been raised before this court does not hold forte.
It has also come on record that there was no denial of the status of the petitioner as a tenant rather it has been observed by learned Appellate Authority in its para no.21 of the judgment that there was a compromise which had been arrived at between the parties during trial in which the tenant had admitted respondent to be the owner. The relevant para is being reproduced herein below for better understanding:-
" There is no denial of status of the respondent as tenant.
C.R. No.4030 of 2012(O&M) #4# During pendency of the petition, an application u/s 151 CPC was moved on behalf of respondent no.2 to place on record compromise deed and affidavit. Therein respondent no.2 conceded that he had entered into a compromise with the owner/landlord/petitioner T.c.Mittal had handed over vacant possession of the premises to him. He had no objection if the rent petition was allowed against him. Learned Rent Controller rightly placed reliance upon this document to hold the relationship of landlord and tenant proved. Moreover, respondent no.1 who appeared in the witness box as RW-1 admitted in his cross examination that the petitioner was pressing them for increasing the rent. PW-4 Vineet Sayal, Clerk of Estate Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh brought the summoned record and stated that as per record, house no.3173, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh stood in the name of Shakuntia Rani, C.M. Anand, Kanak Anand and A.L. Chadha. The General Power of Attorney Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3, Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5 executed by the owners authorized the petitioner to give the property on rent, recover the rent and take action against defaulting tenants. Respondent no.1 in cross examination admitted that the petitioner had purchased the house in question from A.L. Chadha and others through their attorney Surinder Pal. Vide Ex.PX, petitioner's suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 5.10.1989 was decreed against Surinder Gupta, A.L. Chadha, K.C. Chadha, Shakuntia C.R. No.4030 of 2012(O&M) #5# Rani, C.M. Anand and Kanak Anand. Considering the material on record and the admissions of the respondents, no fault can be found with the findings of learned Rent Controller that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties."
Thus as is evident from the above discussed paragraph, this Court finds that the sole argument raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) has rightly been dealt with by the learned courts below and no perversity can be found in the same.
In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE July 23, 2012 Vinay