Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sudhir Kumar vs M/S Badri Nath Krishan Narain Sayal & ... on 13 December, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
CR No.7204 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.7204 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision:13.12.2013
Sudhir Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
M/s Badri Nath Krishan Narain Sayal & Sons ....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to
see judgment?
2. To be referred to reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present:- Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)
This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 19.8.2010 of the Rent Controller, Ferozepur whereby eviction of the petitioner has been ordered from the demised premises. Further challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 6.8.2012 of the Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal filed against the aforesaid order of eviction on behalf of the tenant-petitioner.
Respondent through its Karta Krishan Narain Sayal (since deceased and now represented through LRs) filed the instant ejectment petition against the petitioner on the ground that he was in arrears of rent since 1.1.2004 and also for remaining in unauthorized possession of premises in dispute since April, 2003. It was also averred that demised premises were required by the respondent- Kadian Savita 2013.12.20 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.7204 of 2012 (O&M) 2 landlord for his bona fide requirement.
The petitioner contested the petition raising various preliminary objections including that the respondent-landlord was not competent to file the ejectment petition as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, it was admitted that petitioner was tenant in the premises at the rate of Rs.200/- per month, but the respondent-landlord was not owner of the property in question. The agreement of rent relied upon by the respondent- landlord was forged and fabricated document. All other averments were denied and dismissal of the eviction petition was prayed for.
Both parties led evidence in support of their respective cases.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPA
2. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent as alleged by the applicant? OPA
3. Whether the respondent requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation as alleged? OPA
4. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises? OPA
5. Whether application is not maintainable in the present form? OPR
6. Whether applicant has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPR
7. Whether the application is false and frivolous? Kadian Savita 2013.12.20 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.7204 of 2012 (O&M) 3
OPR
8. Relief.
In order to prove issue No.1, respondents brought on file rent agreements in favour of the original landlord/applicant-Krishan Narayan Sayal as Ex.A1, Ex.A3 and Ex.A4. Further, Sh. Atul Sayal legal heir of deceased landlord appeared in the witness box and proved authenticity of these documents. Apart from this, ownership of the applicant was also proved by AW2-Gagandip Sood, who categorically deposed that premises in dispute is a part and parcel of the property No.138-P, Ahatta Bihari Lal, Bazar No.1, Ferozepur Cantt also known as Ahatta Bihari Lal. He further stated that earlier Krishan Narain Sayal was Karta of joint Hindu family property and now Atul Sayal is its Karta and the petitioner was in occupation of the said property as a tenant. Petitioner led no evidence and his evidence was closed by order of the Court. After considering the evidence on record, eviction of the petitioner was ordered from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and bona fide requirement of the respondent.
Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Para No.12 of the judgment of the Appellate Authority may also be noticed at this stage:-
"In this case appellant has not appeared in the witness box to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or to deny the rate of rent as alleged by the Kadian Savita 2013.12.20 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.7204 of 2012 (O&M) 4 appellant. No explanation or reason has been given by the appellant for no appearing in the witness box for facing the cross examination by the opposite party. For that an adverse inference is likely to be drawn against him to the effect that had he appeared in the witness box and faced cross examination of the respondent then the case of the respondent would have been proved on the file. In the absence of any evidence of the appellant on the file, only his written statement is there to be considered in this case for deciding this appeal. In his written statement appellant has not denied the ownership of the applicant/respondent over the demised premises. Although it has been pleaded by him that rate of rent is Rs.200/- per month but he has not pleaded anywhere under whom he is tenant and to whom he has been paying rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. In para No.1 on merits in the written statement, it has been pleaded that applicant alone is not the owner of the premises in question, meaning thereby that there are other owners also of the demised premises and it is settled law that Kadian Savita 2013.12.20 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.7204 of 2012 (O&M) 5 one of the co-owners is entitled to file application for ejectment on his behalf or on behalf of other true owners, the applicant has proved on the file various rent agreements signed by the appellant in the presence of the witness but as stated above appellant has not appeared in the witness box to deny the execution of the agreements. Similarly applicant has produced on the file rent receipt Ex.A3 signed by the appellant, vide which he has paid rent of the demised premises at the rate claimed by the applicant in this case. This receipt has also not been denied by the respondent as he has not appeared in the witness box. Thus, evidence of the applicant on the file has gone unrebutted and from the unrebutted evidence on the file coupled with the rent receipt and rent agreements, not only relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties stands proved but rate of rent as claimed by the applicant also stands proved. Even otherwise it does not appeal to reason that applicant would give demised premises to the appellant on rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month only. Further more the demised Kadian Savita 2013.12.20 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.7204 of 2012 (O&M) 6 premises is also required by the applicant for his own use and occupation and his bonafide need for using demised premises by the applicant cannot be questioned by the appellant."
Still not satisfied,the petitioner has filed the instant petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has not been proved in this case. However, petitioner even did not dare to step into witness box to controvert the aforesaid evidence or to prove his contention that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In view thereof, no exception can be taken to the findings so recorded.
Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner has attempted to challenge the concurrent findings of the Courts below recorded in favour of the respondent-landlord to the effect that demised premises are required by him for his own use and occupation.
At this stage, it may be noticed that need of the respondent-landlord has been proved from the testimony of Atul Sayal who appeared in the witness box and reiterated the averments made in the eviction petition. Despite availing number of opportunities, petitioner failed to lead any evidence and his evidence was ultimately closed without examination of any witness and thus, averments made in the petition which were further supported by the Kadian Savita 2013.12.20 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.7204 of 2012 (O&M) 7 documents produced on record, remained unrebutted by the petitioner.
In view thereof, in the absence of any evidence on behalf of the petitioner, no exception can be taken to the findings of the Courts below. Moreover, counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the aforesaid observations of the Authorities below in any manner.
Dismissed.
December 13, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
savita JUDGE
Kadian Savita
2013.12.20 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh