Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rati Ram vs Tej Parkash And Ors on 5 November, 2014
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
Civil Revision No.7235 of 2014(O&M) -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Misc. No.24703-CII of 2014 in/and
Civil Revision No.7235 of 2014
Date of decision: 5.11.2014
Rati Ram
....Petitioner
Versus
Tej Parkash and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate with
Mr. B.R.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral)
Civil Misc. No.24703-CII-2014 Prayer made in this Civil Misc. Application for placing on record copy of rent note dated 24.6.1952 (Annexure P/1) is allowed subject to just exception.
Annexure P/1 is taken on record.
Office to tag the same at appropriate place in the file. The Civil Misc. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.7235 of 2014
1. Challenge in the present revision petition by the petitioner/tenant is to the order dated 27.8.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority, Rewari whereby the appeal of the landlord was allowed and the petitioner-tenant Rati Ram was directed to vacate the premises in dispute bearing House Tax No.7477 situated in Mohalla Vaidwara, Rewari.
2. The ejectment petition was filed by Parbhu Dayal deceased against the petitioner Rati Ram on the ground that he was owner of the property on the basis of registered sale deed dated 2.5.1984 and supplementary sale deed dated 2.5.1988. The judgment and decree dated 28.7.1989 in the civil suit titled "Parbhu Dayal Vs. Subhash Chand etc. was also relied to claim ownership. It was averred that the petitioner was a tenant on the monthly rent of ` 40/-
PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2014.11.18 10:10 and he not paid the rent from 16.7.2003 till filing of petition i.e. 8.12.2005.
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7235 of 2014(O&M) -2- **** Further ground taken was that the landlord was working as Chief Yard Master, Northern Western Railways, Phulera and was going to retire on 28.2.2006 and wanted the property in question for his own use and occupation as he has no other property situated at Rewari. Apart from personal requirement, the suit property was 150 years old and in a dilapidated condition and unfit for human habitation which he wanted to reconstruct. A tin shed and toilet had also been constructed in the absence of the landlord.
3. On issuing notice of the rent petition, the petitioner-tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and took the plea that earlier petition had been dismissed on 15.1.1988. The vendor Mathura Parshad, Ishwari and Virender Singh were not the owners of the suit property and they had no right to execute the sale deeds dated 2.5.1984 and 2.5.1988. Therefore, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the said petition. It was further averred that the property in question was taken on rent by Jee Sukh, father of the tenant prior to 1942 from Ram Kishan son of Ram Parshad at a monthly rent of ` 1/- which was paid upto 1964. Thereafter, Ram Kishan left Rewari and no rent was received by him. It is alleged that petitioner-tenant has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. It is further alleged that heirs of Ram Chander son of Jee Sukh, who is brother of the petitioner-tenant were not impleaded as party. Mathura Parshad and others were alleged to have no title in the suit property since they were not the legal heirs of Ram Kishan who had died issue less and the decree dated 28.7.1989 was collusive and not binding. The plea of bonafide occupation was disputed and that the rent had been paid at the rate of ` 1/- per month for the preceding three years. It was denied that the property was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The alleged construction of tin shed and toilet was prior to the sale deed dated 2.5.1984 and thus, there were no material alterations.
PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2014.11.18 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity
4. The following issues were framed by the Rent Controller, Rewari of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7235 of 2014(O&M) -3- **** "1) Whether respondent is liable to be ejected from the premises in question grounds mentioned in the petition?OPP
2) Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?OPP
3) Whether the present petition is barred by res-judicata?OPR
4) Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition?OPR
5) Whether the petition is barred by limitation?OPR
6) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition?OPR
7) Relief."
5. The deceased landlord examined as many as 10 witnesses whereas petitioner-tenant examined as many as 8 witnesses. The application for additional evidence was also allowed and the rent note dated 24.6.1952 Ex.PW8/1 and Hindi translation thereof Ex.PW8/2 were brought on record. Counsel for the petitioner has placed the translated version of same on record as Annexure P/1.
6. The Rent Controller, Rewari dismissed the rent petition on the ground that under issue no.2, there was no relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties and previously Jee Sukh was tenant in the suit property and thereafter his son Rati Ram had come into the premises as a tenant. Rati Ram was claiming himself to be as owner by way of adverse possession and Mathura Parsad not having any interest in the suit property could not have executed any sale deed in favour of the petitioner before the Rent Controller as they were not the legal heirs of Ram Kishan who had died issueless. It was also noticed that there was no dispute that Ram Kishan was owner of the suit property and he had given the demise premise to Jee Sukh PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2014.11.18 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity and there was no rent note between the petitioner and respondent before the of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7235 of 2014(O&M) -4- **** Rent Controller, Rewari on the file and the only rent note was between Chander s/o Jee Sukh and Mathura Parsad and Chander was not a party to the litigation. Accordingly, on account of relationship of tenant and landlord not being proved, the rent petition was dismissed.
7. On appeal being filed, the Appellate Authority, Rewari took into account the lineage of the relationship interese by noticing that the original owner of the house was one Ram Parshad who had two sons namely Ram Kishan and Duli Chand. The rent note dated 24.6.1952 Ex. AW8/1 of the property in question had been executed by Chander the brother of the petitioner- tenant and son of Jee Sukh. In the sale deed Ex.P2 and the rent note dated 24.6.1952 Ex. AW8/1 there was a specific mention that Mathura Parshad was the adopted son of Ram Kishan and as per the said rent note there was an admission by Chander that his late father Jee Sukh had remained tenant in the house and thereafter, the said rent note had been executed. As notice above, the said fact that Ram Kishan son of Ram Parshad was the owner is admitted by the petitioner-tenant in his written statement itself and he had also claimed adverse possession against others on the ground that Ram Kishan had died. It has also been admitted by the present petitioner that Chander and he were residing together in the house in dispute. It has been noticed that said Chander did not challenge the rent note at any stage, Accordingly, the Appellate Authority keeping in view the settled principle that once a tenant always a tenant held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is also noticed that the relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be denied and title cannot be challenged and thus finding recorded by the Rent Controller was set aside after noticing that tenant had failed to pay the rent during the pendency of the proceedings and eviction was ordered after placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Mahabir Parshad Garg Vs. Mahabir Parshad and PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2014.11.18 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7235 of 2014(O&M) -5- **** another 2014(1) RCR (Rent) 455 (P&H). Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Maragathammal Vs. Kamalammal 2006 (2) HRR 677 (SC) to hold that tenant was avoiding the payment of arrears deliberately and order of ejectment had been passed.
8. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that once there was a dispute regarding question of title, the Appellate Authority was not justified in ordering eviction.
9. This Court is, however, not impressed with the arguments raised. Admittedly, the Appellate Authority has gone deep into the factual aspect. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner Rati Ram being son of Jee Sukh is in possession and Chander his brother was no longer alive who had entered into the rent note with Mathura Parsad who is alleged adopted son of Ram Kishan. The rent note was executed way back on 24.6.1952. Mathura Parsad sold the property in question to deceased Parbbu Dayal and in such circumstances even as per his own case of the petitioner-tenant himself, they had set up a hostile title against the other owners since Ram Kishan had died and he also admitted that he alongwith his brother were tenant in the house in dispute.
10. It is settled principle that a tenant cannot question the title of the landlord without surrendering possession. Reference can be safely made to Gian Chand Vs. Shakti Chand 1986 HRR 313, Smt.Anar Devi Vs. Nathu Ram 1994 HRR 427 and Full Bench judgment of this Court in Hari Parshad Gupta Vs. Jatinder Kumar Kaushik 1982 PLR 150. This Court has also considered the said issue in detail in Jagdish Parshad Vs. Trilok Chand 2012(3) PLR 651 and held that once relationship of the landlord and tenant is there between the parties, the tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord without surrendering of possession keeping in mind Section 116 of the Evidence Act. The Court of competent jurisdiction in such circumstances who is to adjudicate on the PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2014.11.18 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7235 of 2014(O&M) -6- **** relationship of the landlord and tenant would be none else than the Rent Controller. Once the authority finds that the relationship is proved, on the ground of personal necessity the order of eviction is necessarily to be followed. Reliance can be placed upon the three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Laxmidas Morarji (Dead) by L.Rs Vs. Miss Behrose Darab Madan 2009(2) RCR 347. The relevant observation reads as under:-
"20) The Rent Control Act is a special enactment conferring certain special rights and imposing certain special obligations upon landlords and tenants. The Rent Control Act imposes restrictions on the right of landlord to evict his tenants on the grounds other than what is specified in the Statute. This court in the case of Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Rattan Singh and Ors. (1964) 1 SCR 259, has observed, that, ordinarily, it is for the civil courts to determine whether and if so, what jural relationship exists between the litigating parties. The Tribunals under the Act being creatures of the Statute have limited jurisdiction and have to function within the limits of the Statute creating them. But within the provisions of the Act, they are Tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction and their orders are final and not liable to be questioned in collateral proceedings, like a separate application in execution proceedings. The Court has further observed, that, therefore, there is no substance in the contention that as soon as the appellant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant, the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act is completely ousted. A landlord must be very ill-advised to start proceedings under the Act, if there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. If a person in possession of the premises is not a tenant, the owner of the premises would be entitled to institute a suit for ejectment in the civil courts, untrammeled by the provisions of the Act. It is only when he happens to be the tenant of the premises in an urban area, the provisions of the Act are attracted. Mere denial of relationship of landlord and tenant cannot oust the jurisdiction unless it is specifically provided in the Statute. If the Rent Controller finds that the opposite party is not a tenant of the landlord, he must dismiss the landlord's application for eviction, but if he finds that PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2014.11.18 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7235 of 2014(O&M) -7- **** such a plea by the opposite party is not true and that the opposite party is a tenant of the landlord, then, if the ground of eviction is proved, he must order eviction of the tenant."
11. It is settled principle of law that once the person claims adverse possession, he admits the title of the person who is claiming title, therefore, in such circumstances argument that there was no adverse possession against Ram Kishan who is original landlord is without any basis. Once the respondent stepped into the shoes of Ram Kishan it is not for the tenant to question the title. The eviction was rightly ordered by the Appellate Authority while placing reliance upon Mahabir Parshad Garg's case (supra) which has further placed reliance upon binding precedent in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation 2002 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514. The Apex Court specifically held that the rent has to be continuously paid during the proceedings and the authorities have to take into consideration this aspect. Therefore, the order directing ejectment cannot be faulted with. As noticed above once the relationship of landlord and tenant has been denied, the submission of the counsel that an opportunity should be given for tendering of rent to avoid the eviction is without any basis. It is settled principle that where tenant takes chance and denies the relationship of landlord and tenant he is not to be given an opportunity for depositing the arrears of rent. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of this Court in Sandeep Shahi Vs. Smt. Asha Rani 2010 (4) PLR 630 which had earlier placed reliance upon the said principle earlier laid down in Hukma Devi Vs. Bhagwan Dass 2003 (2) PLR 771 and Raghbir Singh Vs. Sansar Chand 2004(3) PLR 841. The relevant observation reads as under:-
"From the dictum of the judgements of this Court in the cases of Raghbir Singh (supra) and Hukma Devi (supra), it is clear that once relationship of landlord - tenant is denied, neither assessment of rent is required to be made nor or any opportunity is required to be PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA given to the tenant to pay arrears of rent." 2014.11.18 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7235 of 2014(O&M) -8- ****
12. It is also now settled by the Apex Court that this Court in revisional jurisdiction will not dwell deep into the factual aspect and if finding of fact has been recorded, this Court is only to see that whether there was any gross miscarriage of justice or the authorities below had acted without any jurisdiction.
Reference can be made to judgment of the constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78. The relevant observations read as under:-
"We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re- appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is pen to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of tis revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2014.11.18 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7235 of 2014(O&M) -9- **** the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re-appreciate or re- assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity."
13. Accordingly, keeping in view the above discussion, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed.
5.11.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
Pka JUDGE
PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA
2014.11.18 10:10
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh