Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunbeam Traders & Ors vs Smt. Urmil Rao on 14 January, 2013
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
CR No.165 of 2011(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.165 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision:-14th January 2013
Sunbeam Traders & Ors.
......Petitioners.
Versus
Smt. Urmil Rao.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for Petitioners(tenants).
Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Himani Sarin, Advocate for respondent(landlord).
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.
Petitioners(tenants) are in revision under Section 18-A(8)of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949(hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the impugned order dated 17.12.2010, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby, petition filed by respondent (landlady) under Section 13-A of the Act, has been accepted and consequently, application for leave to contest filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
In brief, facts of the case are that respondent(landlady) claimed herself to be owner of House no.224, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh (demised premises), which she states to have purchased along with her husband and two sons vide registered sale deed dated 30.03.2010. It was averred in the CR No.165 of 2011(O&M) #2# petition that she is owner to the extent of 20% and the remaining share is owned by her husband as well as her sons. On the basis of this sale deed, premises stands in the name of respondent, her husband and their two sons. It was also stated that at the time of the purchase of house in question, it was occupied by the petitioners(tenants) at a monthly rent of Rs.700/- per month and thus, by virtue of execution of sale deed by the previous owners, she along with her family has become the owner-cum-landlord of the demised premises. Ejectment application was filed by the respondent(landlady) on the ground that she is due to retire from service on 28.02.2011 as a lecturer in History and is posted at Government College for Girls, Sector 11, Chandigarh on deputation basis. It was also averred by respondent (landlady) that she is at present living with her husband in a government house no.514, Sector 16-B, Chandigarh since 2005 and her husband is also due to retire on 31.07.2010. Thus, the present ejectment application was preferred under Section 13-A of the Act for eviction of the premises for her own use and occupation.
Upon notice, the petitioners(tenants) appeared and filed application for leave to contest within the period of limitation, whereby it was averred that the petition is not maintainable. It was also averred by the petitioners(tenants) that the sale deed dated 30.03.2010 which is being relied upon by the respondent(landlady) is not a legal, valid and genuine document and rather a sham transaction and thus no reliance can be placed upon the sale deed. The relationship of landlord and tenant was also denied and it was stated that the premises was taken on rent from one Dr. G.S. Sandhu in June 1974 and after he went abroad, the rent till May 1996 was being paid to his wife Smt. Pritam Kaur on instructions of Dr. G.S. Sandhu.
CR No.165 of 2011(O&M) #3# Remaining averments were denied and prayer was made for grant of leave to contest.
In reply to the said application, all the averments as stated in the application for leave to contest were denied and those mentioned in the ejectment application were reiterated.
After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, learned Rent Controller dismissed the application for leave to contest filed by the petitioners(tenants) and consequently, allowed the ejectment application under Section 13-A of the Act filed by the respondent(landlady).
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully with their able assistance.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) has argued that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the petitioners and respondent(landlady) as is evident from the fact that earlier Satwant Singh son of Amar Singh filed an ejectment petition against the husband of petitioner no.2(K.K. Khurana), alleging him to be a tenant but the petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. Thereafter, Satwant Singh filed an ejectment petition against the petitioners which was also dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 2.6.2008 by holding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between Satwant Singh and the petitioners. After the dismissal of the said ejectment application, Satwant Singh sold the property to Breeze Infotech Pvt. Ltd., who again filed a petition against the petitioners which was also dismissed on 5.5.2010. It has also been argued that thereafter Breeze Infotech Pvt. Ltd., filed an ejectment application on the ground of cease to occupy the premises, which was also dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh.
CR No.165 of 2011(O&M) #4# After having failed to get premises vacated Breeze Infotech sold the property to respondent and her family members without any right, title or interest. It was further argued that the premises was taken on rent from Dr. G.S. Sandhu in June 1974 and the first receipt was signed by G.S. Sandhu on 13.6.1974 along with other receipts and henceforth, the rent was deposited in the account of wife of G.S. Sandhu as per instructions of G.S. Sandhu himself. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the cross examination of Satwant Singh in an ejectment application which was recorded on 4.5.2005(Annexure P-1) whereby he had stated that Poonam Arora has been recorded as the owner in the Estate Office, record till date. Thus, the necessary corollary of the above mentioned facts makes it abundantly clear that Satwant Singh had no right to sell the property to Breeze Infotech Pvt. Ltd., as he was not the owner thereof.
Second argument that has been raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) is that the respondent(landlady) has miserably failed to prove the details qua the ownership as to how she had acquired from the original owner. As evidence is required to be led to prove this fact, and the petitioners(tenants) are vehemently denying the title of respondent (landlady), therefore, the learned Rent Controller ought to have allowed the application for leave to contest and should have taken evidence to this effect.
The third argument that has been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) is that in a proceeding to decide leave to contest, only application accompanied by affidavit are to be considered but the learned Rent Controller has given a finding qua ownership of landlady by relating back to the previous owners and thus has exceeded its jurisdiction.
CR No.165 of 2011(O&M) #5# In support of his plea, he has relied upon 1982(2) RCR(Rent) 544 Precision Steel and Engineering Works Vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal and 1991(1) RCR(Rent) 259 Mahajan Cloth House and Ors. Vs. Tara Singh.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent (landlady) has argued that there is no quarrel to the proposition that has been raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) that only the application for leave to contest and affidavit are to be seen, but the learned Rent Controller has also to see from the perusal of the affidavit and application for leave to contest that whether the tenant has made out a case for grant of leave to contest or not. In the present case, petitioners(tenants) have miserably failed to make out a case for grant of leave to contest and thus the learned Rent Controller has rightly declined the said application.
Secondly, it has been argued that the categoric stand taken by the petitioners(tenants) is that they acknowledge themselves to be a tenant and do not claim themselves to be owners of the property of demised premises. It is their case that they had taken the premises on rent from one G.S. Sandhu in June 1974 and have been paying rent to him ever since and thereafter to his wife Mrs. Pritam Kaur till May, 1996. However, there is no explanation coming forth as to who is this G.S. Sandhu and how the premises was let out by him. There is no supporting document to this fact which has been placed on record by the petitioners(tenants) along with their application for leave to contest and thus, it is a mere averment which is not supported on any concrete basis. It has also been argued by learned Counsel for the respondent (landlady) that the petitioners(tenants) have themselves placed on record all sale deeds which relate back from the CR No.165 of 2011(O&M) #6# original owner to the present respondent(landlady) which proves that the property was bought by the respondent(landlady) from the actual owner. It has also been argued at bar that none of the previous owners have challenged the sale deed till date and thus, the locus is only with the previous owners to challenge the sale deed and not with the petitioners (tenants) to dispute the title of a landlord.
Finally, it has also been argued by learned counsel for the respondent(landlady) that as is evident from the memo of parties, both the partners of petitioner no.1 namely M/s Sunbeam Traders are residents of some other houses in some other sectors and are not residents of the demised premises and thus, it can be safely inferred that they are not even occupying the property at present and hence, it is only a tactic to delay the rightful claim of a specified landlord who has already retired and is now living in a rented premises by paying Rs.1 lac per month as rent.
After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the opinion that the present revision petition is devoid of any merit and same deserves to be dismissed.
Prime most question for consideration before this Court is as to whether respondent(landlady) is actually the owner of the property and consequently, landlord of petitioners(tenants) for the purpose of maintaining a petition under Section 13-A of the Act or not. Vide CM No.3986 of 2011, respondent(landlady) had placed on record a flow chart which showed as to how the property has changed hands from one owner to the other. For the sake of convenience, said flow chart is being reproduced herein below:-
" Plot in dispute allotted to
POONAM ARORA (letter dated 2.2.1960)
I Executed registered exchange
CR No.165 of 2011(O&M) #7#
I deed (dated 9.5.1974) with
I
I
AMAR SINGH & KARTAR KAUR
I
I Amar Singh & Kartar Kaur died &
I property transferred to their legal
I heirs (letter dated 12.7.2005)
I
SATWANT SINGH ETC.
I
I Executed registered sale deed
I dated 24.4.2008 in favour of
I
M/s BREEZE INFO TECH. PVT. LTD.
I
I Executed registered sale deed
I dated 30.03.2010 in favour of
I
SMT. URMIL RAO
MR. R.K. RAO
VARUN RAO
VIVEK RAO.
As is clear from the above referred flow chart, property was originally owned by one Poonam Arora and thereafter it came under the ownership of Amar Singh and Kartar Kaur. Here it would be relevant to deal with the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners (tenants) to the effect that Satwant Singh, who is admittedly son of Amar Singh had admitted in a previous rent petition that the property stands in the name of Poonam Arora as on 4.5.2005 i.e. the date when the cross examination was done by the petitioners(tenants). However, the said argument is completely devoid of any merit as it has come on record that property stood transferred in the name of legal heirs of Amar Singh and Kartar Kaur vide letter dated 12.7.2005 issued by Estate Officer(Annexure R-3) i.e. two months after the making of the said statement in court. Thereafter, the Lrs of Amar Singh and Kartar Kaur i.e. Satwant Singh and others executed a registered sale deed in favour of M/s Breeze Infotech Pvt.
CR No.165 of 2011(O&M) #8# Ltd., (Annexure P-2) which is a sale deed that was placed on record by the petitioners(tenants) themselves at the time of filing application for leave to contest. It was only thereafter, that M/s Breeze Infotech Pvt. Ltd., sold the demised premises to present respondent(landlady) and her family vide sale deed dated 30.03.2010. It has not been disputed at bar that Poonam Arora was the original owner of the property and it is further not in dispute that the petitioners(tenants) themselves placed on record the documents, whereby Amar Singh and Kartar Kaur became the owners of the property after Poonam Arora executed a registered exchange deed dated 9.5.1974 (placed on record before this Court as Annexure R-2). Thus, the petitioners (tenants) themselves have completed the cycle of ownership by placing on record the documents that proves that the property had exchanged hands from Poonam Arora to Amar Singh and Kartar Kaur, to their legal heirs, then to M/s Breeze Infotech Pvt. Ltd., and finally to the respondent (landlady) and her family. Hence, the first question has to be answered in favour of the respondent(landlady) as it is proved on record that she had bought the property from the actual/rightful owner and thus, the petitioners (tenants) cannot challenge the veracity of her ownership. Not only this, a tenant does not have any locus standi to challenge the sale deed which has been registered by the Estate Office, after taking stamp duty mentioned in the sale deed on the ground that same is a sham and fictitious document, as the said plea is only available to the previous owners, who could challenged it on the grounds that are available with them. The said grounds are not available with the petitioners(tenants) who, admittedly, do not claim ownership over the property and only claims themselves to be tenants over the same, but under somebody else.
CR No.165 of 2011(O&M) #9# Since the registered sale deed was produced on record by the respondent(landlady) at the time of the filing of the application for leave to contest, therefore, prima facie it has to be held that the sale deed was duly and validly executed for valuable consideration and same is not a sham and fictitious document. In proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act, the Rent Controller is only required to see as to whether prima facie, landlord has been able to prove his ownership over the property by producing a valid document or not. Since, as held earlier, respondent(landlady) has placed on record the registered sale deed, which carries presumption of truth regarding its due and valid execution this Court has no hesitation in holding that the respondent(landlady) is the owner of demised property.
As far as the other argument that has been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) to the effect that they had taken the property on rent from one G.S. Sandhu and were paying rent earlier to him and then to his wife, this Court does not agree with the said argument as there is no document whatsoever that has been placed on record by the petitioners(tenants) to the effect that would show that G.S. Sandhu had let out the property. Even otherwise, if it is considered that the property was let out by G.S. Sandhu, now no right remains with him and for all purposes respondent has become the owner as well as the landlady for the petitioners (tenants) as she has acquired ownership in the manner as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. It is settled law that owner is always deemed to be a landlord and in the present petition, respondent(landlady) has become owner by virtue of registered sale deed and thus, this objection does not hold any forte and the same is also rejected.
Final argument that has been raised by learned Counsel for the CR No.165 of 2011(O&M) #10# petitioners(tenants) that only the application for leave to contest along with affidavit are to be taken into consideration, and nothing else is to be seen is no doubt correct position of law. However, this Court is of the opinion that onus was entirely upon the petitioners(tenants) to show that they have made out a valid ground for allowing the application for leave to contest and merely on asserting certain facts which are not supported by even prima facie documents, application for leave to contest cannot be permitted on mere bald assertions.
This Court is of the opinion that a tenant can only be permitted to challenge the eviction petition under Section 13-A of the Act on the grounds which are tenable and are supported by certain documents which prima facie influence the view of a Rent Controller to observe that evidence is required to be taken. Without there being any strong prima facie case, the Rent Controller should not ordinarily allow the application of leave to contest, as the entire purpose of the beneficial legislation as envisaged under Section 13-A of the Act would stand defeated, if the bald assertions made by the tenants are permitted to be considered.
In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE January 14th, 2013 Vinay