Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan Singh Son Of Rattan Chand vs Vijay Kumar Sharma Son Of Dina Nath ... on 29 April, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CR No.6335 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.6335 of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision: 29.04.2013
Mohan Singh son of Rattan Chand, resident of House No.HL-20, Ist
Floor, Phase-1 Mohali, Tehsil and District S.A.S. Nagar.
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Vijay Kumar Sharma son of Dina Nath Sharma, resident of House
No.7-B, Inner Nangal Township, Ropar and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether reports of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes/No
Present: Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.
*******
K. KANNAN, J.(ORAL)
1. The revision petition is against the concurrent orders of ejectment passed by the Courts below. The landlord has filed the petition for eviction on the grounds of nonpayment of rent and for personal necessity. The contest in defence was that there have been no landlord tenant relationship and the property was taken on rent by the tenant from one Nirmal Kochhar after entering into an agreement with her and offering to pay `1,50,000/- in advance and `2000/- per month. The tenant also contended that the personal necessity pleaded by the CR No.6335 of 2012 2 landlord was not genuine.
2. At the trial the landlord who was a bank employee stated that the tenancy was oral and the transaction was struck when the tenant met him at the bank premises and offered to take the property on rent at `2000/- per month. The tenant placed the evidence of one Nirmal Kochhar as RW-1 and sought to prove a copy of the rent agreement Ex.R-1 which the tenant purported to have entered into with Nirmal Kochhar. While dealing with this document, the Courts below observed that Nirmal Kochhar herself had admitted that the landlord was indeed the owner but she gave the property on rent by the fact that she was a neighbour of the property which was demised and the landowner had handed over the keys to her. She could not stand the cross examination with any cogent support for the case of the respondent. She admitted that she never received any rent and the rent was being paid only to the landlord directly. She also said that all other properties of the landlord had been rented out by the landlord himself and he had been collecting rent from the tenants. The evidence of Nirmal Kochhar through whom the tenant set up his own case of tenancy wilted and the Court below held that oral tenancy had been established.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenants argues with vehemence that the evidence of the landlord himself was too sketchy and the Court must have rejected the evidence as untenable. CR No.6335 of 2012 3 The bank employee was not able to recall the time and place when the rental arrangement commenced. He also had no document of prove the tenancy which was inconceivable that the landlord would have allowed for handing over the property to an utter stranger who met by chance at a bank. She would therefore contend that the burden of proof being on the landlord to establish the jural relationship, the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority must have rejected the case of the landlord on the failure of landlord to establish his status as such.
4. The cases where the plea is one of oral tenancy, to look for a documentary evidence begs the question of what has to be answered. The Court will have to only examine the circumstances spoken to by the landlord for creation of the tenancy. It was not a chance transaction, as spoken to by the counsel but on the other hand the case of the tenant making visits to the bank and after a month the property was granted to the tenant. The person in whom the tenant was setting up the title as landlord actually gave up the plea in defence and gave evidence to the effect that she was not receiving the rent and it was only the landlord who had received the amount. The landlord himself stated that he had received rent only up to December 2003 and that he had not received subsequently. All this taken together clearly showed that the case of the tenancy set up by the tenant in favour of Nirmal Kochhar cannot be true.
5. The learned counsel also argues that she had been paying CR No.6335 of 2012 4 rent to Nirmal Kochhar and that she had not been paying rent to the landlord. If Nirmal Kochhar herself was denying the receipts of rents then the plea of the landlord that the tenant had stopped paying rent after December 2003 ought to be taken as established since her own case is that the tenant had been paying rent to the landlord. A rent receipt must normally be in the hands of a tenant. If the tenant has no rent receipt to produce, it cannot lead to a presumption that the tenant was always regular in payment of rent but only the landlord was not giving receipts. There can be no presumption that the landlord received rent but did not give written receipts. On the fact stated that the tenant did not pay the rent and on the admission of Nirmal Kochhar that she was not also receiving the rent and in the context of the petitioner's own evidence that the tenancy was oral, I have no doubt in my mind that the tenant was setting for false evidence and Court below was justified in rejecting the contention and was also justified in accepting the oral tenancy between the petitioner and the person claiming to be the landlord as fully established.
6. The personal requirement falls to be considered in a very narrow compass. It is admitted case that the landlord's only property is the demised property at Nangal and he was living in a rent premises with his wife. The contention of the tenant was that the wife of the landlord was a Government servant and she was living in government quarters and husband could reside along with her. The counsel would CR No.6335 of 2012 5 also point out that in the petition it was contended that he required the premises for his personal requirement as well as for the educational needs of his children. The counsel would argue that the landlord had admitted that the sons had gone away to USA after their studies and to that extent the requirement was no longer there when he required the property for his own personal needs and was citing the fact that the sons would also want the property to be accommodated along with him, the fact that the sons had gone away cannot wipe away his own needs. It is not possible for a tenant to compel the landlord to reside only in a rented house along with his wife. If the landlord chooses to shift his own residence and opts not to stay in government accommodation it cannot be a matter of concern of the tenant. The eviction order was therefore perfectly justified.
7. The petitioner will have the right to continue for a period of four months and the order of eviction will stand suspended, if the tenant acknowledges his status as a tenant and pays rent at the rate of `2500/- per month for all the period from the date of petition till date and continues to do so for the remaining period of 4 months as well. The first payment regarding all the arrears from the date of petition till date must be paid within one month and the subsequent arrears, as and when they accrue, shall be paid within 10 months of the next succeeding calendar month. If there is a default of the payment of rent within the stipulated period, the additional period granted for eviction CR No.6335 of 2012 6 shall stand withdrawn and the landlord will be at liberty to apply for eviction forthwith.
8. The revision petition is disposed of with the above directions.
29.04.2013 [ K. KANNAN ] Diwaker Gulati JUDGE