Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dhalu Ram And Ors. vs Jessa Ram on 26 May, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)138PLR251
JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This is landlords' petition under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 praying for setting aside the order dated 6.4.1989 passed by Appellate Authority, Sonepat. The Appellate Authority has reversed the order dated 29.7.1988 of the Rent Controller vide which the Rent Controller has ordered ejectment of the tenant-respondent from the demised premises.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Nanki Bai has purchased two plots from one Guru Dutt for a sum of Rs. 2,400/- on 20.4.1960. The landlord-petitioners had produced on record a copy of the sale deed dated 20.4.1960 Ex.AW-2/1 which proves the fact of purchasing two plots by Nanki Bai. Before Nanki Bai had purchased the plots, there was no religious place on those plots. Neither the sale deed nor the jamabandi for the year 1956-57 indicate anything to that effect.
3. Nanki Bai became extremely religious after the death of her husband Talia Ram. It appears that she started devoting her time to the worship of Holy Shri Guru Granth Sahib and some Hindu idols which she had installed at her house which was built on one of the plots. There is a shop adjoining the house and the dispute is with regard to the shop. Nanki Bai also died.
4. After her death, the landlord-petitioners are alleged to be the legal representatives being the collaterals of Talia Ram i.e. husband of Nanki Bai. It is claimed that they have inherited the demised premises. It is pertinent to mention that the landlord-petitioners 1 and 2 are brothers and landlord-petitioner No. 3 is sister of Talia Ram. The relationship between the landlord-petitioners and Nanki Bai has not been disputed.
5. The tenant-respondent has also admitted that he was tenant under Nanki Bai and on that basis it has been held that Nanki Bai during her life time was the landlady of the tenant-respondent. However, after her death, the tenant-respondent is alleged to have paid rent to one Prem Parkash in respect of the demised premises. The aforementioned Prem Parkash is said to be a Sewak of the Gurudwara. The receipts showing the payment of rent Exs.R1 to R3 issued by Prem Parkash at the rate of Rs. 65/- do not have stamp of the Gurudwara except stating that the rent has been received in respect of Gurudwara Nanki Bai. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that once of the landlord-petitioners are held to be the heirs of Nanki Bai, it has to be accepted that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the tenant-respondent and the landlord-petitioners. The view of the Rent Controller in this regard reads as under:-
".........In the instant case, after going through the evidence on the file, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have been able to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, it is immaterial if the respondent has tried to lead this evidence that Sh. Gurunanak Sahi Gurudwara Sikka Colony, Sonepat is owner of the shop in dispute.
The contention of the petitioners is that Smt. Nanki Bai was the owner of the shop as well as the adjoining property. The petitioner has produced a copy of the sale deed dated 20.4.1960 Ex.AW2/1 which shows that Smt. Nanki Bai purchased two plots from Guru Dutt for a sum of Rs. 2400/- on 20.4.1960. The copy of Jamabandi of the year 1956-57 Ex.A1 also shows that Smt. Nanki Bai was owner of the land measuring 17K-4M situated in Mauja Purkhas. These two documents do not show that any Gurudwara or any other person had concern with the property purchased by Smt. Nanki Bai. On the other hand, these two documents show that Smt. Nanki Bai was the exclusive owner of the property purchased by her and it stood in her name.
The respondent has pleaded in his written reply that he took the premises on rent from the Management of Gurudwara Guru Nanak Sahib, Sikka Colony, Sonepat and Smt. Nanki Bai was not her landlord. However, when the respondent Jessa Ram came in the witness box as RW1 he demolished his own plea taken in the written reply. He staled in his examination-in-chief itself that the shop in dispute was taken on rent by him from Smt. Nanki Bai about 12 years ago. He also slated that Smt. Nanki Bai died on 24.10.1984 and after the death of Smt Nanki Bai he had been making payment of rent to Prem Kumar. It means that Smt. Nanki Bai was the landlord qua the respondent till her death and it was Smt. Nanki Bai who had been accepting rent from the respondent till her death. It is also pertinent that RW1 Jessa Ram respondent also admitted that the property which was stated to be temple by him was the self acquired properly of Smt. Nanki Bai. He also admitted that in the religious place built by Smt. Nanki Bai, the persons could enter in accordance with the permission by Smt. Nanki Bai. He also admitted that he had taken the shop in dispute from Smt. Nanki Bai considering her to be owner. He also stated that he would accept that person as owner who is declared to be owner by the Court. Thus, the very statement of RW1 Jessa Ram is quite contrary to the stand taken by him in his written reply that he took the premises on rent from the management of Gurudwara Gurunanak Sahib, Sikka Colony, Sonepat. On the other hand his testimony proves that it was Smt. Nanki Bai who was the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute along with other property."
6. The Rent Controller further held that Nanki Bai did not dedicate her whole property to the Gurudwara Guru Nanak Sahib, Sikka Colony, Sonepat and there is nothing on the record to show that the Gurudwara has been the owner of the property of Nanki Bai. Nothing has been produced on record which may show that any committee was constituted for management of the Gurudwara or temple or the property of Nanki Bai as per the findings of the Rent Controller. The receipts Exs.R1 to R5 issued by one Prem Parkash RW-2 have been discarded by the Rent Controller on the ground that acceptance of rent by Prem Parkash is no evidence that Gurudwara is the owner or the landlord of the demised shop. The rate of rent has been found to be Rs. 65/- by the Rent Controller.
7. The learned Appellate Authority placing reliance on a written statement filed by Smt. Nanki Bai in Civil Suit No. 534 of 26.7.1970 has concluded that Smt. Nanki Bai has dedicated her whole property for religious and charitable purposes. It is appropriate to mention that one Parmeshwari Bai widow of Hari Dass had filed Civil Suit No. 534 of 26.7.1970, decided on 30.11.1971 seeking permanent injunction on the basis of a registered gift deed dated 22.2.1965 in respect of a house. It is appropriate to mention that the shop which is in dispute was not subject matter of the suit. In the written statement filed by Smt. Nanki Bai, the stand taken was that the suit property was dedicated by her for religious and charitable object in the year 1962 and for establishing a temple. The copy of the written statement has been placed oh record as Ex.R-5. On the basis of the aforementioned evidence, the Appellate Authority concluded that the shop which adjoins the house is also covered by the written statement filed by Smt. Nanki Bai. On the basis that there is contentious issue with regard to the dispute of ownership of the demised premises, the learned Appellate Authority held that the question has to be agitated before the civil Court. The view of the learned Appellate Authority in this regard reads as under:-
"it is well settled that when the question regarding the ownership of a building has arisen before the Ren Controller, it is not within his jurisdiction to decide that question. This was the matter which was to be settled by the civil Court. Determination of title of the property in dispute is beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller who is not empowered to decide any such question or title. It was desirable on the part of the learned Rent Controller to refrain from determining the question of title in summary proceedings. In my considered opinion, in this case, the petitioners were not admitted as landlords of the demise premises and neither they were proved as landlords. From the evidence led it has rather transpired that same vested in Gurudwara or Smt. Nanki Bai had no interest in the property because she had already dedicated the same for religious and charitable purposes. Thus, in this case it was involved as to whether the property in question is belonging to Gurudwara Committee or the same is property left by Smt. Nanki Bai. It was not a pure question of inheritance. Petitioners had not alleged themselves as the legal heirs of Smt. Nanki Bai in the religious matters so as to inherit her duties as that of Administrator or Manager of the institution. Now on one hand, today the petitioners are seeking ejectment of Jessa Ram from the shop in question. On the next day they would throw out the religious and holy books of Ramayan, Guru Granth Sahib etc. from the temple and on the third day they would also restrain the public from worshipping the idols. Thus when such complicated question of title was involved, it was worthwhile on the part of the Rent Controller to stay his hands."
8. Mr. J.L. Malhotra, learned counsel for the landlord-petitioners has argued that once the relationship between the parties has been denied by the tenant-respondent and it has been established on record that the landlord-petitioners are the legal heirs of Nanki Bai, then there is no escape from passing an order of ejectment against the tenant-respondent. Learned counsel has also argued that the Appellate Authority has committed grave error by placing reliance on the written statement filed by Nanki Bai in Civil Suit No. 534 of 29.6.1970 Ex.R5 because the civil suit was not in respect of the demised shop and the dispute pertained to the house adjoining the shop. Referring to the boundaries given to paragraph I of Annexure R-4 which is a copy of the plaint the learned counsel has submitted that the dispute involved in the civil suit was with regard to the property shown by letters ABDEF and the shop which is the subject-matter of dispute is shown to be belonging to Nanki Bai on the northern side. Therefore, no reliance could be placed on the written statement Ex.R5 filed by Nanki Bai in Civil Suit No. 534 of 29.6.1970. The learned counsel has also submitted that assuming that the property in dispute is a religious and charitable place, then at best it could be a private trust and not a public trust which may show that the property cannot be considered open to the general public without any restriction. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Haribhanu Maharaj of Baroda v. Charily Commissioner, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 2189.
9. Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, learned counsel for the tenant-respondent has argued that once there is a dispute with regard to the title of the property, then the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority would have no power to decide that question and the question of title could be decided by the civil court in a properly instituted suit. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Prithi Raj v. Hans Raj, (1969)71 P.L.R. 177 and Naurata Ram v. Ram Chand and Ors., (1987-2)92 P.L.R. 76.
10. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that this petition deserves to be accepted and the view taken by the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. The Appellate Authority has committed an error in law by reading the admission in respect of the disputed house in Civil Suit No. 534 of 29.6.1970 as admission with regard to the demised shop. A perusal of Ex.R4 which is a copy of the plaint filed in the civil suit shows that the dispute raised in that case was regarding the house and one Parmeshwan Bai had set up a registered gift deed dated 22.2.1965 alleged to be executed by Smt., Nanki Bai in favour of her husband. According to the site plan attached with the plaint, the boundaries were shown as under:-
North: Shop of the defendant and Street. South: Street of the colony. Fast: House of Sewa Ram. West: House of Himta Ram.
11. A perusal of the aforementioned statement of boundaries made in the plaint shows that the house which was subject matter of the suit was depicted by identifying it and showing that it was adjoining to the shop of Nanki Bai. The demised shop was not subject matter of dispute in Civil Suit No. 534 of 29.6.1970. The statement of Nanki Bai, therefore, cannot be considered in respect of the demised shop. There is no evidence with regard to establishing a temple in the shop which is a property separate than the house where the temple is alleged to have been established. Therefore, there is no warrant for the Appellate Authority to reach a conclusion that the admission made by Nanki Devi included the demised shop when she had only made the statement with regard to the house in dispute alone. Moreover, the relationship of Nanki Bai with the landlord-petitioners stands established and it has to be held that for the purposes of the Rent Act, they are the landlord-petitioners and the tenant-respondent. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside and those of the Rent Controller deserve to be restored.
12. It is true that the Rent Controller cannot decide the question of title but by coming to a conclusion that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant, no decision has been rendered on the question of title. In Prithi Raj's case (supra) the authorities under the Rent Act has taken up the question of title and has decided the same. In these circumstances, this Court has held that the authorities under the Act cannot deal with the question of title. There is no doubt with the proposition laid down in that case. However, the judgment will not come to the rescue of the tenant-respondent as no question of title has been decided either by the Rent Controller or by the Appellate Authority. The Rent Controller has merely proceeded on the premise that the landlord-petitioners are the successors of Nanki Bai being related to her from the side of her husband Talia Ram. Therefore, once the relationship of landlord and tenant has been admitted between Nanki Bai and the tenant-respondent, it would follow that the tenant-respondent would continue to be the tenant under the legal representatives. The sale deed showing that the property was purchased by Nanki Bai on 20.4.1960 vide Ex.AW-2/1, then no doubt is left that there was relationship of landlord and tenant. In such circumstances, the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority would not be debarred from proceeding on the basis that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
13. The other judgment in the case of Naurata Ram (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the tenant-respondent does not render much help to him because in that case there was no documentary evidence to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant except the entries in the municipal record. The direction issued by the Appellate Authority for deciding the question of title by the civil Court was upheld. In the present case, there is ample evidence showing that Nanki Bai was the landlady of the tenant-respondent and her legal heirs were to be accepted as the landlords after her death. Therefore, the judgment in Naurata Ram's case (supra) would have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Reliance has also been placed on the case of J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd., and Ors. v. M.R. Murali and Anr., (2002)3 S.C.C. 98. Even that case would have no application because there was a dispute between the landlord-respondent and the municipal corporation. It was claimed by the Municipal Corporation that the land was allotted by the Corporation to the landlord and the Corporation was the owner as well as the landlord. The facts in the present case are obviously different.
14. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. The judgment of the Appellate Authority is set aside and the order of the Rent Controller is restored. Accordingly, the tenant-respondent is directed to vacant and handover the vacant possession of the demised premises within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.