Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs Bhagwan Dass on 23 February, 2012
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
CR No.1132 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.1132 of 2012 (O & M)
Date of decision:23.02.2012
Rakesh Kumar ......Petitioner
Vs
Bhagwan Dass ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.Rohit Ahuja, Advocate, for the petitioner.
*****
G.S.SANDHAWALIA J.(ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed by the tenant challenging the order dated 06.02.2012 whereby the application filed by the tenant under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Faridabad.
2. As per the application, the petitioner-tenant alleged that the landlord had failed to produce any document qua the ownership of the property in dispute and it has come on record that the respondent is not related to the property in question. It is alleged that as per the record of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, one Om Prakash was recorded as owner of the shop in dispute and there is no property existing in the name of the alleged landlord with respect to the property bearing No.37 situated at 1-J NIT,Faridabad with the MCF, Faridabad. It was, accordingly, contended that directions be issued for producing the documents of title.
3. The said application was contested by filing reply by the respondent-landlord and it was submitted that he is the absolute owner in possession of the property and the applicant was his tenant and the tenancy was admitted by him and there was no need to produce any documents to prove the ownership of the respondent as there was no dispute regarding the relationship of the applicant and the respondent. It was further averred that CR No.1132 of 2012 2 there is no dispute regarding title of the property and it is only a petition for eviction under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act'). It is also submitted that it is not necessary to be the owner of the property and he can be a landlord in the present case, and therefore, the application was not maintainable. The provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure were also objected as not being applicable and that there was a rent agreement dated 25.11.2004 which had been already accepted and admitted by the applicant.
4. The Rent Controller, Faridabad, vide the impugned order, came to the conclusion that in the written statement itself, it was admitted that the applicant was the tenant and he had been paying rent @ Rs3300/- per month and sometimes, his co-owner/GPA holder, Mr.Raju had been collecting rent from the applicant. It was also noticed that there was existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant and onus to prove the same was upon the respondent. Accordingly, keeping in view the principle enshrined in Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, whereby the tenant was estopped from denying the title of the landlord, it was held that it is not the requirement of law in eviction proceedings that the petitioner in eviction petition must plead and prove that he is the owner of the premises and there was no requirement for the landlord to produce document of title regarding the property in question and the application was dismissed.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was in receipt of notice dated 21.04.2011(Annexure P3) which shows that Om Prakash was the owner and once the respondent-landlord had himself averred in the eviction petition that he was landlord/owner of the property in dispute, the Rent Controller, Faridabad was in error in not allowing the CR No.1132 of 2012 3 application and tenant has been seriously prejudiced. There is no strength in the averment made by the counsel for the petitioner. The proceedings, as noticed, are under the Rent Act. The landlord, in para No.2 of his eviction petition specifically averred that he had let out the shop to the tenant and there was a writing between the parties in the form of Rent Agreement on 25.11.2004 and the rate of rent was Rs.3200/- per month. The said para reads as under:
"2. That the petitioner intended to let out the above said shop/premises mentioned in para no.1 of the petition and the respondent agreed to take the same on rent for which the terms and conditions got reduced into writing between the petitioner and respondent in the form of Rent Agreement for a period of 11 months on the monthly rent of Rs.3200/- per month and rent payable on or before 10th day of each English Calendar month in advance and the mode of payment was agreed to be paid by cash or crossed cheques drawn in favour of the petitioner. The Rent Agreement got executed and reduced into writing on 25th November 2004 between the parties to the petition though the tenancy started from 1st November, 2004 however the possession of the shop in question was given to the respondent/tenant on 1st November, 2004 and since then the relation of land lord and tenant exists between the petitioner and respondent and as per the clause no.3 of the Rent Agreement after completion of each and every month increase in rent was agreed to be 5% of the rent initially agreed i.e., 3200/- Per Month after every eleven months. The Respondent paid the rent upto 31st July, 2007 and the present rate of rent from the month of 1st June, 2009 is 4083/- -per month."
6. The tenant-petitioner, in his preliminary objections averred as under:
"1. That the petition of the petitioner is without any cause of action. The petitioner has filed the present petition as an CR No.1132 of 2012 4 counter blast to the Suit for Permanent Injunction filed by the respondent against the petitoner which is pending before the Hon'ble Court of Sh.Manpreet Singh: Civil Judge: Faridabad. The petitioner, while living in the same area, has been receiving the rent of the premises in question till May 2009 but has never issued the receipt of the rent being received. The rent being claimed now in the present petition by the petitioner, being arrears, was neither due nor payable.
2. That the contents of para under reply are wrong and denied. It is incorrect that any Rent Agreement was reduced into writing. However, it is correct that the respondent was tenant under the petitioner only for 11 Months and the tenancy was to reduced into writing after 11 Months which was never written and the rent @ Rs.3300/- was being charged from the respondent by the petitioner till May 2009. It is incorrect that any Rent Agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent on 25-11-2004 and that they agreed for any increase @ 5% after completion of each and every month. It is incorrect that the rate of rent was initially agreed as Rs.3200/- p.m. It is incorrect that the respondent paid the rent upto the month of July 2007 only and that the present rate of rent is Rs.4083/- p.m. In fact the respondent had been paying the rent of the premises in question @ Rs.3,300/- P.M. regularly to the petitioner and has not defaulted the payment of the same at any point of time. Sometimes the petitioner and some times his co-owner/GPA holder Mr.Raju had been collecting the rent from the respondent but they never issued any receipt for the same. However, the respondent also never bothered to ask the petitioner to issue the rent receipt as there existed very good friendly terms between the respondent and the petitioner."
7. From a perusal of the written statement filed by the tenant- petitioner, it would be clear that the relationship of landlord-tenant has been accepted and rent is also being paid to the respondent. Section 2 (c) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 defines that CR No.1132 of 2012 5 landlord means any person entitled to receive any rent. Section 2 (c) reads as under:
"2 (c) "landlord" means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf, or for the benefit, of any other person, or as a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person, and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter provided, and every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord;"
8. This Court in M/s R.S.Madho Ram & others Vs. M/s Dwarka Dass & sons 1991 (1) PLR 666 has held that a person need not be owner to become a landlord but he can be an other person who is entitled to receive rent.
9. Thus, the issue of ownership of the property is not a material consideration before the Rent Controller, Faridabad. The parties have admitted that there is a landlord-tenant relationship which continues. Therefore, the orders passed by the Rent Controller, Faridabad cannot be said to arbitrary, illegal and perverse in any manner which can warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
10. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.
23.02.2012 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE