Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Sh. Kishan ... vs Ramesh Kumar Saini S/O Sh. Birbal Saini on 11 October, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CR No.5749 of 2001(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.5749 of 2001(O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.10.2012
Rajesh Kumar Sharma son of Sh. Kishan Sarup Pathak, r/o
Fountain Chowk, near Old Bus Stand, Tehsil Sohna, district
Gurgaon.
... Petitioner
Versus
Ramesh Kumar Saini S/o Sh. Birbal Saini, r/o Mohalla
maliwara, near Foundation Chowk, Sohna, tehsil Sohna district
Gurgaon and another.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate
for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Rana, Advocate,
for respondents.
*****
1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? NO
2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest? NO
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. The revision is at the instance of the sub-tenant who claimed that the sub-tenancy was recognized by the landlord. It is an admitted case that the initial writing was in favour of a person other than the petitioner. The petitioner sought to justify his presence as an issue of joint tenancy being granted to the tenant and petitioner himself by a subsequent conduct of the landlord. It was sought to be supported by the plea that CR No.5749 of 2001(O&M) [2] the landlord had not taken any action for about 7½ years after the sub-tenancy which itself was a proof of the fact that the tenant had been allowed to take yet another person in joint occupation and with the landlord's concurrence in such an arrangement by recognizing them as a joint tenants.
2. This contention taken by the tenant was rejected by both the Courts below on a factual consideration that there had been no such concurrence or proof that the landlord conceded to a joint tenancy. The learned counsel points out to me an earlier ruling rendered by this Court in Subhash Chander v. Surinder Singh (1994)2 RCR 465 that if the landlord had not taken action despite knowledge of alleged tenancy of more than 12½ years the fact for eviction itself could not be supported. I am afraid. I can not agree with a view that a consent or a concurrence of a landlord must be presumed if immediate action is taken by the landlord, after the knowledge of sub- tenancy. There cannot be any estoppel against statute. The learned counsel says that there were three receipts where the landlord had issued receipts referring the petitioner as a sub- tenant. This contention itself is inconsistent with a case of joint tenancy. Further, the written consent of what the law contemplates is to the act of sub-tenancy. The concurrence must be available for such sub-tenancy. If the written consent does not exist as a matter of fact for the sub-tenancy, no CR No.5749 of 2001(O&M) [3] amount of oral concurrence or delay in proceedings could alter the situation. I cannot find that the Courts below were in error in ordering eviction for what they perceive to be a statutorily impermissible.
3. The order of eviction is maintained and the revision is dismissed.
11th October, 2012 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE