Kishori Lal vs Wazir Chand and Another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This judgment will dispose of C.R. Nos. 1219 of 1983 and 1254 of 1983 as both the cames arise out of the same judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 8th March, 1983.

The landlord-petitioner Kishori Lal filed the ejectment application on 12th April, 1978 aginst the tenant Wazir Chand, inter aliat an the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from 1st April, 1969 and personal necessity. 17th May, 1978 was the first date of hearing. No arrears of rent were tendered on that day However,, on 3rd August, 1978, the patties produced a written compromise in which it was stated that the ejectment be ordered against the tenant because he failed to tender the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. However he may be allowed to vacate the premises upto 31st October, 1978, failing which the landlord Kishori Lal will be entitled to eject him in execution On that very day Mohan Lal moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, for being impleaded as a party as he claimed himself to be the owner of the property in dispute. Consequently, the said compromise could not be recorded as a dispute had arisen as regards the ownership of the demised premises. That application was contested on behalf of the landlord-Kishori Lal However, the learned Rent Controller, vide us order dated 25th November, 1978, allowed the said application and directed the Petitioner to file an amended application impleading Mohan Lal as Respondent Written statement was filed by Mohan Lal, Respondent No. 2, whereas Wazir Chand Respondent stated that he did not want to submit any fresh written statement.

On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the applicant has no locus standi to bring this petition ? OPA

(2) Whether the Respondent is liable to ejectment on the grounds mentioned in para No. 2 of the petition ? OPA

(3) Relief.

Later, on 16th December, 1978, an additional issue was framed "whether the applicant is the owner/landlord of the demised premises ?" On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that Wazir Chand was a tenant under Kishori Lal and since he was in arrears of rent he was liable for ejectment. However, no finding was given by the learned Rent Controller on the additional issue. Consequently, eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, both Mohan Lai and Wazir Chand tenant filed two separate appeals. The learned Appellate Authority found that the question as to which of the brothers was the owner of the chohara and the home underneath is not to be decided in these proceedings It is a complicated question of law which the parties can get determined by filing a civil suit. Having made these observations, the learned Appellate Authority proceeded with the appeal to find as to whether Wazir Chand was inducted as a tenant by Kishori Lal in the demised premises. Ultimately, it was found that Kishori Lal had failed to prove that he was the landlord of the premises qua Wazir Chand and, thus, had a locus standi to file the application for ejectment against Wazir Chand. In view of this finding, the eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, Kishori Lal has filed those two petitions.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that Mohan Lai could not be made a party in the ejectm"nt proceedings, Incase he claimed himself to be the owner of the demised premises he could get his title decided by way of a civil suit. In support of this contention, reference was made to Smt Balbir Kaur v. M/s Novex Dry Cleaners (1982) 84 P.L.R. 475. It was further contended that in view of the admission made by the tenant Wazir Chand vide compromise deed dated 3rd August, 1978 (Ex. A-3), he was liable to be ejected and the Rent Controller rightly passed the eviction order against him. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Mohan Lal Respondent contended that once Kishori Lal landlord filed the amended application, he could not be allowed to agitate that the order impleading Mohan Lal as a party was wrong or illegal. Thus, argued the Learned Counsel, though the question of title between Mohan and Kishori Lal could not be decided in these proceedings but at the same time Kishori Lal was not entitled to an ejectment order because he has failed to prove himself to be the landlord qua Wazir Chand.

Mr. Roshan Lal Batta, Learned Counsel for the tenant-Wazir Chand, submitted that In view of the overwhelming evidence on record, the admission in Ex. A-3 could not be used against him and therefore, the finding of the Appellate Authority in this behalf was perfectly valid.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that Mohan Lal could not be impleaded as a party in these ejectment proceedings In case he claimed himself to be the owner and the landlord qua Wazir Chand tenant, either he should have filed an ejectment application independently or approached the civil Court to get declaration to that effect Moreover, even the Appellate Authority has found that the question of ownership between the two brothers could not be decided in these proceedings

As regards the question whether Wazir Chand was the tenant under Kishori Lal or not, the learned Rent Controller rightly relied upon the admission made by Wazir Chand in Ex. A-3. There is absolutely no explanation on the part of the tenant Wazir Chand as to why he made the said admission The mere fact that earlier in the written statement filed by him he denied that Kishori Lal was his landlord was of no consequence when he knowing it fully well admitted in Ex. A-3 that he was the tenant under Kishori Lal. It appears that lateron, Mohaa Lal prevailed upon him and on that basis he tried to resile from his admission In any case, Wazir Chand is admittedly the tenant on the demised premises. In view of his admission in Ex. A-3 he could not be allowed to resile from the same and plead that he was not the tenant under Kishori Lal but under Mohan Lal. As observed earlier, the dispute of title between the two brothers could not be decided in these proceedings. In this view of the matter, the Rent Controller rightly came to this conclusion and passed the eviction order whereas the approach of the learned Appellate Authority in this behalf was misconceived and illegal.

As a result of the above discussion, both the petitions succeed, the order of the Appellate Authority is quashed and that of the Rent Controller directing ejectment of the tenat-Wazir Chand is restored with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, plus advance cent for three months is deposited with the Rent Controller within a month It is further clarified that Kishori Lal will be entitled to realise the amount of arrears of rent already deposited by the tenant Wazir Chand during these proceedings. However, this will be subject to the rights of Mohan Lal Respondent, if any, that he may establish in a competent court of law.