AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by Narinder Pal Singh Bindra (hereinafter described as the petitioner)
directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 24.1.1994 and of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dated
29.10.1996. The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction which was upheld by the Appellate Authority.
The relevant facts are that respondent No. 1 filed the eviction petition against the petitioner and two others (respondents 1 and 2) with respect
to the premises in dispute. It was asserted that property was let to respondents 2 and 3 for residential purpose except the garage with the condition
that they will use the premises only for residence. A school has been started in the said premises under the name and style of Saraswati Model
School. Respondent No. 1 objected but respondents 2 and 3 assured that building would be vacated. Thereafter respondents 2 and 3 closed their
school and disbanded their establishment. They handed over the possession to the petitioner without permission and consent of respondent No. 1.
A school has been started under the name and style of Standard Public School. The other grounds of eviction are not in controversy in the present
revision petition.
The petition for eviction was contested and respondents 2 and 3 in their written statement asserted that property in question in fact had been let
to Vidya Parishad for running the school. The said Vidya Parishad was a registered society and has to render the accounts to general body and to
Chairman. It was asserted that respondents 2 and 3 have handed over the possession to Saraswati Model School which is an educated society.
The main contest was offered by the petitioner who took up the defence that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent
No. 1 and respondents 2 and 3. Vidya Parishad is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is a tenant in the demised
premises. Thus, Vidya Parishad was a necessary party. The society was stated to be running a school uptill middle class but the society has
changed the name of the school to Standford Model School.
The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and held that in fact respondents 2 and 3 were the tenants in the property. The property in
question has been sublet to the petitioner and further the user of the premises has been changed. On these two grounds the order of eviction was
passed. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority held that admittedly it is a residential building. It was held that
respondents 2 and 3 were the tenants and property has been sublet. The other grounds of eviction that user of the premises has been changed was
also decided against the petitioner. On these broad facts assailing the said orders, the present revision petition has been filed.
The main controversy in the present petition is as to if the property has been sublet or in other words if respondents 2 and 3 were the tenants in
the property in question or not ? As mentioned above the defence offered has been that Viday Parishad which is a society registered under the
Societies Registration Act is the tenant in the suit premises.
During the course of arguments, the attention of the Court has been drawn to the fact that Vidya Parishad is a society registered under the
Societies Registration Act. It had filed a civil suit for declaration that it is a tenant in the suit premises. Respondent No. 1 had been arrayed as the
defendant. The said civil suit has since been dismissed. The certified copy of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge was also made
available and it indicated that on 15.3.1999 the appeal was dismissed. The said judgment has since become final. In other words, it has been
adjudicated by the civil Court that Vidya Parishad a society registered under the Societies Registration Act is not the tenant. Once it has been so
decided by the civil Court, in that event it must be held that title of said Vidya Parishad has been adjudicated. It cannot be the subject matter of
controversy before the authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as applicable to Union Territory,Chandigarh.
Otherwise also a finding of fact has been arrived at that it were respondents 2 and 3 who were the tenants in the suit premises. The said finding
indeed is based on evidence and merely because they were the President and the Secretary of the Vidya Parishad, will not permit the interference
that they could not be the tenants.
In that event, it was pointed that in the eviction petition, the said Vidya Parishad was a necessary party. Once again the said plea has to be
stated as rejected. A necessary party is one, in the absence of whom the rights of the parties cannot be adjudicated. In a rent proceedings, in
normal circumstances, necessary party would be the landlord and the tenant. A third person in certain circumstances may be a proper party. In the
present case, keeping in view further the fact that it had been adjudicated that Parishad was not a party it cannot even be insisted that it was a
necessary party.
It is well known that expression ""subletting and parting with possession"" have not specifically been defined under the Act. They have well known
meanings. In the case of subletting the third person should be in occupation for consideration. At times it has been said that he should be a tenant in
the premises of the tenant. In case of parting with possession, the tenant should have parted with the legal possession. The position herein is
identical'' The tenants claim that they are having no right in the property and have already vacated the premises. A third person sets up the right. It
has been adjudicated by the Civil Court that Viday Parishad is not the tenant. The conclusions are obvious that it is a clear case of parting with
possession/subletting.
Reliance on behalf of the petitioner has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Delhi Stationers and Printers Vs.
Rajendra Kumar, The Supreme Court had held:-
Under section 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') the tenant is
liable to be evicted, if he has assigned, sub-let or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without the
permission of the landlord. Sub-letting means transfer of an exclusive right to enjoy the property in favour of the third party and the said right must
be in lieu of payment of some compensation or rent. Parting of the legal possession means possession with the right to include and also a right to
exclude others. Mere occupation is not sufficient to infer either sub-tenancy or parting with possession see Gopal Saran Vs. Satyanarayana, .
The cited observations will not come to the rescue of the petitioner because it is not a case of mere occupation. Herein is matter where a third
person is claiming independent rights and not the tenants.
Reliance has further been placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Raghbir Singh v. Resham Singh and another 1998 HRR 406. In
the cited case the third person was the brother of the tenant. The tenant had gone underground to avoid arrest. It was hold that there was no
voluntary act of subletting the property and the said order was set aside. It is abundantly clear that the said decision does not apply to the facts of
the present case.
The conclusion is, therefore, obvious that both the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rightly passed the order of eviction.
There is no ground to interfere.
Keeping in view the said fact, the ether ground of eviction which in any case was not seriously pressed, does not survive for consideration.
For these reasons, the revision petition fails and in dismissed. The petitioner is granted three months time to vacate the premises.