Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshna Devi vs Ram Lal on 6 February, 2014
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
Civil Revision No.1684 of 2000 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No.1684 of 2000 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 6.2.2014
Darshna Devi PETITIONER
VERSUS
Ram Lal RESPONDENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Shri P.N.Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner is the landlady who sought eviction of the present respondent from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent and change of use and nuisance on account thereof.
Initially, the petition was filed by one Darshna Devi who has since expired. Subsequently, his LRs were brought on record and are prosecuting this petition.
In the petition, it was claimed that the premises were let out to the respondent at the rate of Rs.450/- per month. The tenant was also required to pay the house-tax in the eventuality of it being levied. The respondent was stated to be Dass Ghanshyam 2014.02.17 16:38 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh Civil Revision No.1684 of 2000 -2- in arrears of rent from 1.1.1987 to 15.3.1990. It was pleaded by the petitioner that the rent had been paid till 31.12.1986.
In so far as the other issues regarding to change of use and nuisance are concerned, they are no longer germane to the present controversy as the challenge to these issues was not pressed by the petitioner before the Appellate Court. The Surviving issue therefore, is regarding the non-payment of rent.
The respondent, on the other hand, had pleaded that the tenancy commenced from 2.10.1987 and not from January, 1986, as alleged by the petitioner. Before the learned Rent Controller, the respondent tendered the rent upto 31.3.1989. The learned Rent Controller disbelieved the petitioner and while doing so, he observed as follows:-
"Since no such receipt has been issued by the applicant therefore, it is difficult for the respondent to prove that he has made the payment of rent upto 31.3.1989 on the other hand it was in the hands of the applicant and she could maintain the record with regard to the payment of rent by the respondent. Therefore, the difficulty of the tenant is more than the landlord to maintain the record regarding the payment of rent. Therefore, possible conclusion is that when the landlady has been disbelieved on number of facts, she cannot be believed with regard to the payment of arrears of rent and version of the respondent is believable that he has made the payment of rent to the applicant upto 31.3.1989 and after 31.3.1989 he has made the tender before the court upto the date of institution of the application plus house tax and costs of the application assessed by the court, therefore, he is not in arrears of rent." Dass Ghanshyam 2014.02.17 16:38 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh Civil Revision No.1684 of 2000 -3-
Similarly, the Appellate Court also concluded on the basis of the assessment register of house-tax that the rate of rent was Rs.250/- per month since in the register for the year 1988-89, Rs.3000/- per annum was mentioned as rental value to be charged from the tenant/respondent for running a cycle repair shop. The Appellate Court thus concluded that the rate of rent was Rs.250/- per month.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even if it is assumed that the rent was Rs.250/- per month as determined by the Appellate Court, yet the respondent continues to be in arrears of rent considering the fact that the tenancy was with effect from January, 1986. The rent had been paid upto 31.12.1986 and even if the case of the respondent is accepted that the tenancy commenced from 2.10.1987, then also the respondent/tenant tendered the rent in Court from 1.4.1989 till 31.3.1990 without there being any evidence of rent having been paid for the previous months i.e. from November, 1987 till March, 1989.
Learned counsel for the respondent has relied extensively on the findings recorded by both the courts below and stated that the petitioner has been disbelieved on all counts and that rent was dully tendered and if it had not been paid, then where was the occasion for the petitioner to remain silent for as along as three years.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
I am of the opinion that the learned Rent Controller had demonstrated some perversity in approaching the issue by disbelieving the petitioner simply because her pleas on other issues had not found favour in the Court. Each issue has to be dealt with by the court independently and merely because on certain issues, the litigant is unable to substantiate his/her case, it should not be a ground to discard the plea raised by him altogether. If the facts of the case are to be seen, then the respondent was running a shop and being a Dass Ghanshyam 2014.02.17 16:38 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh Civil Revision No.1684 of 2000 -4- prudent person engaged in a vocation, it would be expected that he would be maintaining some accounts. Even if there was no receipt issued by the landlady, the tenant was expected to be having some material indicating payment of rent.
The courts below have totally ignored this aspect of the matter and if the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Kumar Joshi v. Veena Rani 1990(2) R.C.R (Rent) 573 are to be seen, then in the considered view of this Court, both the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Court have committed a gross error in deciding the issue against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Kumar Joshi v. Veena Rani observed as follows :-
"According to us, the problem posed by Mr.Nesargi is not insoluble. When the premises are let out, they are generally let out at an agreed rent. It is only in rare cases that the rent is either not fixed or becomes a subject matter of dispute. The tenant is not without a remedy in such cases. The Act gives remedy both to the landlord as well as the tenant to apply to the Controller under Section 4 to fix the fair rent. Since the provisions of Section 13(2)(i) loom large and the tenant otherwise faces the prospect of being evicted it is for him in such cases to take precaution and apply to the Controller to fix the fair rent failing which he may pay or tender the rent either as demanded by the landlord or which according to him is due. In the latter case he takes the risk, for if it is proved ultimately that the rent paid or tendered by him was less than what was due, he faces eviction. It is also not correct to say that in the absence of rent-receipts issued by the landlord the tenant is unable to prove either the rate of rent or the period for which the rent is in arrears. He can always make a written grievance Dass Ghanshyam 2014.02.17 16:38 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh Civil Revision No.1684 of 2000 -5- to the landlord or apply to the Rent Controller direction to the landlord issue rent-receipts or deposit the rent before the Rent Controller. Since the Act gives the tenant protection from eviction except on grounds stated therein this is the minimum precaution that should be expected to be taken by the tenant to save himself from eviction. The Act has been on the statute book for a number of years now and no serious difficulty has been experienced on account of the fact that the Rent Controller has not been given the power to give time to the tenant to deposit the rent as determined by him when the application for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent is preferred by the landlord. This is because the Act as pointed out above makes provision for resolving the dispute. On the other hand, to read in Section 13(2)(i) the provisions as suggested by Shri Nasargi would involve recasting of the statute which is not permissible for the Court to do."
The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct that without disputing the rate of rent determined by the courts below, the onus to prove that the rent had been paid from November, 1987 till March, 1989, rested solely on the respondent who claimed such a payment.
Finding that the evidence is totally bereft in this regard, I am of the view that the respondent has failed to show any justifiable cause for not paying the rent for the period from November, 1987 till March, 1989 and this is the only irresistible conclusion that this Court can arrive it.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent has failed to discharge the solitary obligation that forms the bedrock of Dass Ghanshyam 2014.02.17 16:38 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh Civil Revision No.1684 of 2000 -6- the relationship of landlord and tenant i.e. the payment of rent and thus, he cannot continue to occupy the premises with any justification.
The petition is therefore, accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. The respondent is directed to be evicted from the demised premises forthwith.
(MAHESH GROVER)
February 6, 2014 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO
Dass Ghanshyam
2014.02.17 16:38
I am the author of this
document
high court chandigarh