Harmeet Singh vs Rupinder Singh

Surya Kant, J.—This Revision Petition is directed by the tenant against the eviction order dated 08.10.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, which has also been upheld by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide the impugned judgment dated 07.08.2009.

The eviction orders have been passed in respect of a residential House No.3045, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh. The case of the respondent - landlord is that he purchased the afore-stated house (demised premises) vide registered sale deed dated 20.05.2005 from its previous owner - Jagdish Raj Mahajan. The petitioner was allegedly inducted as a tenant on the ground floor of the house by the previous owner at a monthly rent of Rs. 1600/- excluding water and electricity charges. The respondent sought the petitioner's eviction, inter-alia, on the grounds that: (i) the petitioner has not paid the rent (ii) the premises is required by him for his personal use and occupation.

The petitioner contested the eviction petition and raised a preliminary objection against its maintainability. The petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and claimed that he was inducted as a tenant by one Satnam Singh who is his landlord and he is allegedly paying rent to the said Satnam Singh regularly @ Rs.2500/- per month. (4). In view of the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant, the parties went on trial on the following issues:-

Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent since January, 1991?OPP

Whether the petitioner requires the premises for his and his family members for personal use and occupation?OPP

Whether the petitioner is a landlord/owner of the premises?OPP

Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute?

Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form?OPR.

Whether the petitioner has concealed the material facts from the court, if so, its effect?OPR.

Relief.

On the strength of the copy of the sale deed dated 20.05.2005 (Ex.P6) coupled with the Conveyance Deed in respect of the demised premises, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the respondent is the real owner of the demised premises and has consequently become the petitioner's landlord also. It may be noticed here that the respondent has also produced on record the order passed by the Secretary, Chandigarh Housing Board, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh whereby the ownership of the demised premises has been transferred in the name of the respondent in the records of the Estate Office, Chandigarh. In the light of this clinching evidence, there can indeed be no doubt that the respondent has successfully proved himself to be the owner of the demised premises and the petitioner's landlord.

So far as the plea of bona-fide personal necessity is concerned, the respondent's categoric case is that there is no other residential house owned or possessed by him or his family in U.T., Chandigarh. No evidence whatsoever has been led by the petitioner - tenant to controvert the afore-stated stand taken by the respondent - landlord. No such suggestion has been given to the respondent in the cross-examination that he owns any other residential house at Chandigarh or any where else. That being so, the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below regarding genuineness of the personal need pleaded by the respondent warrants no interference by this Court.

The real contentious issue raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he was inducted as a tenant by one Satnam Singh and, thus, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. During the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the said Satnam Singh moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for his impleadment as a party-respondent. The said Satnam Singh also claims an agreement to sell dated 21.10.1999 in his favour, allegedly executed by the original owner - Jagdish Raj Mahajan for a sale consideration of Rs.7 lac, out of which Rs.4 lacs were allegedly received by the prospective vendor on 21.10.1999. According to the petitioner, the said Satnam Singh was put into possession of the demised premises by the previous owner pursuant to the afore-stated agreement to sell and thereafter the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises by Satnam Singh.

The application moved by Satnam Singh was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. He moved yet another application for his impleadment in this revision petition also but the same has been dismissed by a separate order of the even date. The fact that the said Satnam Singh has filed a suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell dated 21.10.1999 has been taken notice by the courts below also.

However, in order to find out the truth as to whether the petitioner was really inducted as a tenant by Satnam Singh in his capacity as a prospective vendee of the demised premises, the Appellate Authority has relied upon an affidavit of none else than the said Satnam Singh (Ex.RW2/A) dated 28.04.2000 which reads as follows:-

That the deponent is residing in the above said premises as lawful tenant, without necessary amenities like wise electricity/water.

That the landlord of the said premises, namely, Shri Jagdish Raj son of Bihar Lal is residing in abroad, because the said landlord are not available here and now the deponent applied for necessary amenities, i.e., electricity/water connections in his own name. The deponent ready to furnish indemnity bond etc. as required by the concerned department to the satisfaction of your goodself.

That the deponent has been deposited the compensation charges vide No. 172/121 dated 17.04.2000 amounting to Rs.3750/- to the Electricity Department. Now the deponent seeks to get the regular connections to be provided as per terms and conditions.

That the deponent is fully responsible to pay securities as regular bills payable to the department as well as the landlord.

Satnam Singh himself having admitted his status as a tenant in the house, the Appellate Authority, at least for the limited purpose of deciding the eviction proceedings, has rightly observed that the petitioner can not be permitted to turn around and claim that Satnam Singh was in possession of the premises in his capacity as a prospective vendee and not as a tenant.

No case to interfere with the impugned orders is made out. Dismissed.