Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charan Singh (Died) Represented By His ... vs Om Parkash on 9 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004)136PLR25
Author: J.S. Khehar
Bench: J.S. Khehar
JUDGMENT J.S. Khehar, J.
1. Respondent Om Parkash filed an ejectment application seeking the eviction of the petitioner Charan Singh from a piece of land measuring 50' x 30', situated in village Jhansa, under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.
2. Ejectment of Charan Singh was sought on account, of the fact that he had failed to pay rent from 16th December, 1978 till the filing of the ejectment application. It is also relevant to note that the ejectment application was instituted on 18th January, 1982. Another ground for seeking the eviction of Charan Singh was that he had effected construction on the plot of land leased out to him, without the petitioner's prior consent.
3. While responding to the ejectment application filed by Om Parkash Charan Singh, inter alia, raised the plea that there was no existing relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, accordingly, the Rent Controller framed Issue No. 1 on the aforesaid subject. The Rent Controller returned a finding in favour of Charan Singh on issue No. 1 by holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the ejectment application filed by Om Parkash came to be dismissed on 20th August, 1983.
4. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Rent Controller, Om Parkash impugned the order passed by the Rent Controller by referring an appeal. The Appellate Authority reversed the finding recorded by the Rent Controller on issue No. 1 on 3rd April, 1984. On the basis of rent note dated 19th October, 1966 (Ex.P9), the Appellate Authority returned a finding that there was a subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Having concluded in favour of Om Parkash on issue No. 1, it was imperative to order the ejectment of Charan Singh on the grounds raised in the ejectment application as Charan Singh had not paid any rent to Om Parkash and had also effected construction on the land without the prior consent of Om Parkash.
5. The order passed by the Appellate Authority has been impugned through the present petition. The first and foremost question to be determined is whether the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority on issue No. 1 is sustainable in law? In fact that is the only issue on which arguments, have been addressed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the Courts below. A collective perusal of the record reveals that the alleged rent note dated 19th October, 1966 was executed on three stamp papers. The thumb impressions of Charan Singh appear on each of the said stamp papers. Charan Singh has not disputed the authenticity of the thumb impressions. Ram Chander, who was produced by Om Parakash as PW6 is professionally a stamp vendor. In his statement, Ram Chander asserted that he had sold the three stamp papers, on which the rent note dated 19th October, 1966 was executed, to Charan Singh. He also asserted in his statement that in the register maintained by him, he had recorded an entry of having sold the three stamp papers, under reference, to Charan Singh. The statement of PW6 has extensively been read out during the course of arguments. No suggestion was put to Ram Chander, PW6 so as to controvert the statement made by him to the effect that an entry was recorded by him in the name of Charan Singh on account of having sold the three stamp papers to him. The rent note dated 19th October, 1966 (Ex,P9) has been attested by two witnesses, namely, Sohan Singh, Lambardar and Sham Parkash son of Pali Ram. Sohan Singh, Lambardar, one of the attesting witnesses, has been produced by Om Parkash as PW8. In his statements, he acknowledged the fact that he had signed the rent note dated 19th October, 1966 as an attesting witness. He also affirmed that it was also signed by the other attesting witness, namely, Sham Parkash. His statement also notices that the other attesting witness has since died. During the course of cross-examination, Sohan Singh, Lambardar affirmed that the rent note dated 19th October, 1966 had been scribed by Ram Parkash Gulati on the asking of Charan Singh. In view of the aforesaid overwhelming evidence, depicting execution of the rent note, the Appellate Authority arrived at the conclusion that the rent note dated 19th October, 1966 (Ex.P9) had been duly executed. On the basis of the execution of rent note, the Appellate Authority returned a finding that there was a subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
7. In order to controvert the conclusion drawn by the Appellate Authority, learned counsel representing Charan Singh has vehemently contended that the rent note, under reference, could not be the basis for determination the relationship of landlord and tenant between he parties, on account of the fact that the size of the plot in possession of Charan Singh is larger than the size of the plot allegedly leased out to him (under the rent note dated 19th October, 1966). He further asserts that the petitioner Om Parkash had failed to establish his title in so far as the leased land is concerned. Besides the aforesaid two submissions, learned counsel for Charan Singh also contended that the rent note was a fictitious and bogus document and that it has not been executed by Charan Singh. In order to authenticate the aforesaid, he primarily placed reliance on the statement of RW7 coupled with the statement of Charan Singh recorded as RW1 wherein it was contended that blank papers were signed by Charan Singh on the asking of Om Parkash for the creation of a credit society in order to obtain a loan. RW7 Karan, who belonged to the same community as Charan Singh and who is engaged in the same professional business as Charan Singh, orally affirmed the aforesaid factual position.
8. In so far as the first contention is concerned, namely, the size of the plot in possession of the petitioner Charan Singh is not of the same dimensions as the one leased out to him by Om Parkash through the alleged rent note dated 19th October, 1966; the issue has been adequately dealt with by the Appellate Authority by concluding that Charan Singh in his written statement had not disputed that he was not in possession of the plot land allegedly leased out to him through the rent note dated 19th October, 1966 (Ex.P9). Having not disputed the identity of the land in his written statement, it is too late in the day now for the petitioner Charan Singh to assert that the land allegedly leased out to him through the rent note dated 19th October, 1966 was not the one in his custody and possession. As long as he is in possession of land depicted in the lease document, it makes no difference whether or not he has additional land over and above that described in the lease document.
9. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Charan Singh is that Om Parkash has failed to establish his title in so far as the property in question is concerned. The subject matter of the instant issue can be adjudicated upon on the basis of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The same is being extracted hereunder:- "116. Estoppel of tenant and of licence of person in possession.-No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession there, shall be permitted to deny that such person had title to such possession at the time when such licence was given".
Once it is concluded that there was a subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it is not open to the tenant in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act to dispute the title of Om Parkash.
10. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as noticed above, was that the rent note is a forged and bogus document, which was never executed by Charan Singh. It is the claim of Charan Singh as has been set out in the evidence produced by him that he had thumb marked blank papers on the asking of Om Parkash for the creation of a credit society, so as to be able to obtain loan for his business. In order to supplement the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed on the statement of RW-7 Karan, who has also stated that he too had been required by Om Parkash to sign blank papers for the purposes of creating a credit society. It is difficult to accept even this contention. The claim now set up at the hands of Charan Singh while appearing as RW-1 and Karan as RW-7 is on the basis of oral evidence without any further authentication. Karan was asked during the course of cross examination as to whether he had obtained any loan in furtherance of the documents signed by him. He denied having obtained any loan. He was also asked to whether the blank papers signed by him were returned to him by Om Parkash. He had answered the aforesaid query in the negative. It is not possible for me to accept the version put out by Charan Singh to explain away his thumb impressions on the rent note dated 19th October, 1966. This conclusion is based on the fact that stamp papers for the execution of rent note were purchased on 9th August, 1966, the same were entered in the register of the stamp vendor on 19th October, 1966, whereas, the ejectment application, on the basis of the aforesaid rent note, was filed on 18th January, 1982. It is not possible for me to accept that Om Parkash thought for misusing the stamp papers in question 16 years prior to filing the ejectment application. Even otherwise there is overwhelming evidence establishing due execution of the rent note dated 19th October, 1966 (already noticed above).
11. No other point was canvassed before me.
12. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this petition.
The same is, accordingly, dismissed.