Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. It was after the revision petition filed by Krishan Mohan Madhok had been allowed by this Court vide order Ex. R-7 dated 19-5-1989 that Surinder Mohan Aggarwal filed instant ejectment application on 10-3-1992 under Section 13-A of the Act as "specified landlord" on the allegations that he is owner/landlord while .Krishan Mohan Madhok is a tenant. Earlier ejectment petition was one under Section 13 simpliciter of the Act which was dismissed by this Court on the finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Banarsi Dass and Banarsi Dass was never inducted as tenant by Surinder Mohan Aggarwal and further Banarsi Dass never inducted Krishan Mohan Madhok to the premises as his sub-tenant and that Krishan Mohan Madhok was a tenant inducted by Smt. Goma Mittal alias Oma Mittal. In the present ejectment petition, Surinder Mohan Aggarwal can succeed only if he is able to prove that he is the owner of the premises. He can succeed if he is able to prove his ownership of the premises may be that Krishan Mohan Madhok was inducted as tenant by Smt. Goma Mittal. A landlord as defined in Section 2 of the Act can file ejectment application against tenant. A "landlord" may not necessarily be "owner." Any person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of any building on his own account or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person, is a landlord. Smt. Goma Mittal alias Oma Mittal could undoubtedly file an ejectment petition against tenant Krishan Mohan Madhok. Ejectment application filed by Surinder Mohan Agarwal will also be competent if he is able to prove that he is owner of the premises and that Krishan Mohan Madhok is a tenant. It was held in Smt. Parkash Wati v. Karnail Singh, (1991) 2 Rent CR 92 (Pun & Har) that "where premises are let by a person other than owner, application for ejectment by owner is maintainable." In Smt. Parkash Wati's case (supra), reliance was placed upon Smt. Ram Piari v. M/s. Delhi Fruit Company etc. 1980 Cur LJ (Civil) 141. Karnail Singh was inducted as tenant by Smt. Parkash Wati's husband Daljit Singh. Daljit Singh was thus landlord. Ejectment petition was filed by Smt. Parkash Wati against Karnail Singh for his eviction She was sought to be nonsuited on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between her and Karnail Singh. Ejectment petition was found to be maintainable by her as she was the owner while her husband was the landlord." In my opinion, ejectment application is maintainable by Smt. Coma Mittal against the tenant. Ejectment application is also maintainable by the owner also in view of the definition of the "landlord" as given in Section 3 of the Act. In this case, therefore, the focus will be on determining the question "whether Surinder Mohan Aggarwal is owner of the premises and if he is found to be owner of the premises, he will automatically be "landlord" as defined in Section 3 of the Act. Surinder Mohan Aggarwal AW-1 has stated that he is owner of this property. This property devolved upon him through Will executed by his mother Smt. Shakuntla. Smt. Shakuntla had got this property from her father Seth Raja Ram. There was family partition among the heirs of Seth Raja Ram and this property fell to the share of his mother Smt. Shakuntla Aggarwal. This property was mutated in the name of his mother Smt. Shakuntla vide mutation Ex. A-2. In jamabandi Ex. A-3 for the year 1973-74, this property is shown to be in his name. In jamabandi for the year 1988-89 Ex. A-4 this property is shown in his name. In Ex. AW-4/1, which is house tax bill for the year 1981-82, property No. B-X1X/154-A is shown in the name of Smt. Shakuntla Devi. In house tax bills for the years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, property No. B-XIX 154-4 is shown in the name of Smt. Shakuntla Devi. Surinder Mohan Aggarwal AW-1 stated prior to the family partition, there were quarters in this land. After this land had fallen to the share of his mother, they raised construction and made it residential property. It was allotted No. B-XIX/154-A by the Municipal Committee, Ludhiana. His mother had executed Will in his favour in the year 1978 which was attested by his father Hans Raj Aggarwal and brother K. K. Aggarwal and the photo copy of which is mark-A. He stated that this property devolved on him from his mother through will Ex. AW-3/1. After the death of his mother, he exercised the rights of ownership so far as this property is concerned. Municipal Committee has been sending him house tax bill at his Solan address. Those bills used to be in the name of his mother but payment of these bills used to be made by him. House tax bills mark C to F and the payments made by him were made through marks G and H. He stated that none of his brothers and sister are challenging his ownership to the property. This property was mutated in his name in the year 1979 through mutation. He requested Municipal Committee, Ludhiana to record his name in the record of ownership maintained by it and it started sending him house tax bills. Smt. Om Kumari Mittal wife of Dr. BK Mittal AW-2 stated that Surinder Mohan Aggarwal is the son of her husband's sister. This premises was owned by Surinder Mohan Aggarwal. It devolved upon him through Smt. Shakuntla. Earlier, this property had fallen to the share of Smt. Shakuntla at family partition between her, her brothers and sister. After the death of Smt. Shakuntla, this property devolved upon Surinder Mohan Aggarwal. Karun Kumar AW-3 stated that this property was earlier under the ownership of his mother Smt. Shakuntla Devi. She got this property at family partition between her brothers and sister. Smt. Shakuntla Devi willed away this property in favour of Surinder Mohan Aggarwal vide will, the photostat copy of which is Ex. AW-3/1. This property was mutated in the name of Surinder Mohan Aggarwal on the basis of will. Karun Kumar Aggarwal is one of the attesting witnesses to this Will. Execution of Will by Smt. Shakuntla Devi in favour of Surinder Mohan Aggarwal stands proved. Sushil Kumar, who is House Tax Clerk in Municipal Committee, Ludhiana AW-4 stated that in the house tax record, this house is shown in the ownership of Smt. Shakuntla Devi. Neeraj Madhok son/attorney of Krishan Mohan Madhok stated that this property was tenanted by his father at a rental of Rs. 500/- p.m. in April 1979 from Smt. Goma Mittal alias Oma Mittal and that Smt. Goma Mittal had been receiving rent. Surinder Mohan Aggarwal is not landlord. They do not acknowledge Surinder Mohan as owner. They do not accept him as landlord.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in the ejectment application and the site plan, no khasra number has been mentioned. Property has been described only by municipal number namely B-XIX/154-A Maharani Jhansi Road, Ludhiana. It was submitted that petitioner Surinder Mohan Aggarwal has made no effort to connect property No. B-XIX/154-A Rani Jhansi Road, Ludhiana with the property shown in mutation Ex. A-2 in the name of Smt. Shakuntla Devi or the record of rights. In Ex. A-3 and Ex. A-4 the property has been shown bearing khasra No. 1665/1220/668/532/467/3/8 (3-B 12-B). It was submitted that in the mutation and the record of rights the property is shown to be situated in Taraf Gahlewal Hadbust No. 166 Tehsil and District Ludhiana. Suffice it to say, in his written statement, Krishan Mohan Madho has nowhere disputed the identity of the property. All that, he has stated is that Surinder Mohan Aggarwal is not the owner/landlord of the premises No. B-XIX/154-ARani Jhansi Road, Ludhiana. In fact, he is tenant inducted to this premises by Smt. Gbma Mittal alias Oma Mittal. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Surinder Mohan Aggarwal. In the earlier ejectemnt application, he had pleaded that he is not sub-tenant inducted by Banarsi Dass but a tenant inducted by Goma Mittal alias Oma Mittal. In the written statement filed in the earlier ejectment petition, he had stated that he is occupying entire building No. B-XIX/154-A Maharani Jhansi Road, Ludhiana as a tenant inducted by Smt. Goma Mittal alias Oma Mittal. He is, thus, tenant of the premises in dispute inducted by Smt. Goma Mittal. Smt. Goma Mittal AW-2 has nowhere stated that she is owner of this premises. She has rather stated that Surinder Mohan Aggarwal is the owner of this premises which devolved upon him from his mother. In this case, thus Surinder Mohan Aggarwal was not required to show that this premises was no other than khasra No. 1665/1220/668/532/467/3/8 Taraf Gahlewal Hadbust No. 166Tehsil Ludhiana.