Case: Mohan Lal Vs Amrik Singh and Ors.. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Judges | V.K. Sharma, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 9; Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 105, 111, 116; Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 - Section 10 |
| Citation | 2008 (149) PLR 137 |
| Judgement Date | October 19, 2007 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Vinod K. Sharma, J.
-
This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1711 and 1712 of 1986 involving common questions of law and facts. For the facility of reference, facts have been taken from Civil Revision No. 1711 of 1986.
-
This revision petition has been filed against the order of ejectment dated 11.10.1984 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, in a petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the demised shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that of the Appellate Authority dated 19.5.1986 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.
-
The respondent-landlords claimed that Mohan Lal was a tenant under them @ Rs. 8/- (Rs. Eight) per month in the demised shop. It the case of the respondent-landlords that Tej Kaur and Mohinder Kaur sold their shares in the demised building in favour of Lakhbir Singh vide sale deed dated 1-6-1981. It was claimed that the respondent-landlords had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction against the tenant and in that case the petitioner therein admitted that he was a tenant in the demised building under the respondent-landlords. It was, therefore, claimed that the respondent-landlords were entitled to file this application for his eviction. It was also the case set up by the respondent-landlords that as per judgment dated 24th April 1979 passed by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ajnala, Tej Kaur and Mohinder Kaur daughters of Pala Singh were held to be owners of the property left by Balwant Singh and Dalip Singh, sons of Pala Singh to the extent of 1/4th share each and Lakhbir Singh purchased the; said share vide sale deed dated 1.6.1981.
-
The ejectment was sought on the grounds of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.6.1981 till the date of filing of the petition and that the demised shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was claimed that the roof of the demised premises was damaged and likely to fall at any time. It was also the case of the respondents that the cracks had appeared in the walls and the shop was in a dilapidated condition. It was also the case set up that the tenant has used the demised shop in such a manner that reduced its value and utility.
-
The petition was contested by the respondent-landlords on the plea that a question of title was involved and, therefore, the Rent controller has no jurisdiction to try the present petition. It was further claimed that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary party and that it was barred under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, it was admitted in the reply that the petitioner herein was tenant in the demised shop @ Rs. 8/- (Rupees eight) per month which is said to have been taken from Pala Singh who died and, thereafter, he became a tenant under his sons Balwant Singh and Dalip Singh. It was further claimed that the tenant had been giving rent to Balwant Singh, who died in the year 1969 and thereafter the tenant started giving rent to Parkash Kaur and Ranjit Singh, who are widow and son, respectively of Balwant Singh deceased. It was also claimed that the said shop has been sold in favour of Purshottam Lal. The arrears of rent were denied. It was asserted that the shop in dispute was quite fit for human habitation and, therefore, the dismissal of the eviction petition was prayed.
-
After filing of the replication, the petitioner-tenant tendered the rent under protest which was accepted by the landlords under protest. Thereafter following issues were framed:
-
Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application? OPR
-
Whether the relationship of the landlord and tenant exists between the parties? OPA.
-
Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment on the ground as alleged in para No. 6 of the application? OPA
-
Whether the respondent has paid rent to Smt. Parkash Kaur, if so, its effect? OPR
-
Relief.
-
Issues No. 1 and 2 were taken up together. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner-tenant was inducted as a tenant by the grand father of the respondent-landlords, who stepped into the shoes of their grand-father Pala Singh and, therefore, recorded a finding that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Rent Controller took note of the judgment in the case of Mathra Dass v. Smt. Ram Piari 1981 (2) R.C.R. 651 to hold that even one of the landlords could file a petition for ejectment. The learned Rent Controller also took note of the definition of the "landlord" as given in Section 2(c) of the Act to hold that for a person to be landlord, he is not required to be owner of the property in question. A person, who has no claim to the title of the property can also come within the definition of the "landlord". The learned Rent Controller also came to the conclusion that the status of the word "landlord" does not visualise a single landlord, but also plural...
To continue reading
Request your trial