Kishori Lal vs Kirpa Singh

D.K. Mahajan, J.—So far as this petition for revision is concerned, there is no dispute on facts. The dispute relates to a shop situate in Nawanshahr district Jullundur. This shop was rented out by Kishori Lal to Kirpa Singh on the 10th March, 1943. Kirpa Singh executed the rent note, Exhibit A. 1. It is provided in the rent note that the tenancy would be for a period of one day less than one year that is, the tenancy had to come to an end on the 9th of March, 1944. There is no evidence and it is not disputed that from the 9th of March, 1944 to the date of the application for eviction (3rd December 1963), no rent has been paid to Kishori Lal. It may also be stated that the tenant had not denied the landlord''s title to the, shop in dispute.

The present petition for eviction was filed by Kishori Lal on the basis of Exhibit A. 1, on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent. The tenant did not tender the arrears of tent at the first hearing, but took the position that he was not the tenant of Kishori Lal, but he was the tenant of Murari Lal, the real brother of Kishori Lal. To whom he was paying rent. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have come to a concurrent decision that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between Kishori Lal and Kirpa Singh. The relationship which was created by Exhibit A. 1 came to an end on the 9th March, 1944 and it has not been established that there was a fresh tenancy created between them thereafter. So far as the legal position is concerned, the matter admits of no doubt. In AIR 1940 410 (Lahore) wherein the facts were somewhat similar and the tenancy was for a fixed term, it was held, by Tek Chand J., with whom Dalip Singh J agreed as follows:-

Counsel then argued that the pLalntiff appellant assented to the continuance of the defendants-respondents in possession of the house as tenants under him, after the expiry of the terra of the lease. He is, however, unable to point out to any facts or circumstances from which this inference could be raised, except the bare fact that the defendants continued to hold over after the tenancy had determined. It is no doubt true that there was no denial of the title of the pLalntiff by the defendants but, at the same time, there is nothing to indicate that the relationship of landlord and tenant continued between the parties after December, 1920. The pLalntiff therefore should have brought his suit for possession within 12 years from 1st December, 1920, as Laid down in Art. 139, Limitation Act. A Urge number of rulings were cited by counsel for the parties before us but it is not necessary to discuss them in detail. There is no real conflict between them if the distinction between a tenancy-at-will and a tenancy for a fixed term is borne in mind. In the former case, the tenancy does not determine until notice to quit has been served on the tenant, or he has denied the tenant''s title. In the latter case, the tenancy is determined automatically at the expiry of the term of the lease, and after that date the relationship of landlord and tenant does not subsist, unless it is proved that there was a novation of contract, express or implied and the tenancy has been converted into a tenancy-at-will or a tenancy from year to year." This view is in consonance with the view adopted by the Privy Council in Mohunt Bhagwan Ramanuj v. Ramkrishna Bose and another. A.I.R 1922 PC. 184 wherein it was held that "a tenancy by sufferance by a tenant holding over, whose lease has expired does not apply in this country. The defendant''s ancestor had a lease of this property which expired more than 12 years ago. At any rate, the learned Judge has found that no fresh agreement was entered into between the parties nor was there any evidence from which it could be inferred that there was a new tenancy. The question, therefore, arises, does Article 139 of the Second Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act applies to a case like this ? The decisions of this Court are that Article 139 does apply.

The decision of this Court in Rulia Ram v. S. Fateh Singh (1962) 64 P.L.R. 255, is also to the same effect.

In order to succeed in his application for eviction of the tenant, the petitioner had to prove that the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties did exist. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have come to a concurrent decision that the aforesaid relationship does not exist. In the circumstances of this case, it must be held for the reasons already recorded that the decision of both the Authorities is correct and no fault can be found with the same. It may be that the tenant Kirpa Singh has colluded with Murari Lal, real brother of Kishori Lal, because he has clearly stated that he is paying rent to Murari Lal. But he does not go further and say that the rent to Murari Lal is being paid on behalf of Kishori Lal. Moreover, no attempt was made to prove that Kishori Lal and Murari Lal were members of joint Hindu family. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that Murari Lal is receiving rent on behalf of Kishori Lal and therefore, there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed: but there will be no order as to costs.