Punjab Khadi Mandal vs Naresh Chander and Another

K. Kannan, J.—The revision petition is at the instance of Punjab Khadi Mandal against the order directing ejectment. The petition for eviction had been filed at the instance of one Naresh Chander on the ground of non-payment of rent and subletting the premises. The petition had been originally instituted against Sube Singh arrayed as the 1st respondent and Haryana Khadi Mandal described as the 2nd respondent. The petitioner was relying on a deed of lease executed by the first respondent Sube Singh in favour of the petitioner''s father Inderjit. The contention was that Sube Singh had sublet the premises to the Haryana Khadi Mandai. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Punjab Khadi Mandal sought impleadment on its own application considering that there had been an amalgamation of the Haryana Khadi Mandal with the Punjab Khadi Mandal and that it had come by all the assets of the Haryana Khadi Mandal. The petition was contested, inter alia, that there had been no subletting at all and the property was taken by Sube Singh only as a Manager of Haryana Khadi Mandal. It was also contended on behalf of the tenant that the original tenancy had been only with the petitioner''s father and the Mandal had never been informed about the transfer of interest in favour of the petitioner. In legal terms, it was seeking to contend that there had been no valid attornment in favour of Naresh Chander as the landlord.

The rent had been paid during the proceedings and the case survives consideration on the issues of Naresh Chander''s alleged status as the landlord and the contention of sub-tenancy. The Court accepted the contention of the landlord and held that the tenancy had been made only in favour of the first respondent Sube Singh and the induction of the second respondent Mandal constituted a sub-tenancy. The Court also held that the petitioner had proved a family partition, under which the petitioner had obtained ownership to the property and being an owner, he must be only taken to be the landlord entitled to prosecute the petition. The appeal was filed only by the Haryana Khadi Mandal along with the Punjab Khadi Mandal and the appellate Court confirmed the decision of the Rent Controller. The revision is filed only at the instance of the Punjab Khadi Mandal as the transferee organization.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Naresh Chander''s status as a landlord itself had never been admitted and the Courts below were in error in trying to find an issue of ownership in his favour by a family partition as justifying his status. The issue of ownership is seldom relevant, while admitting the status of a person as a landlord, though an owner-cum-landlord situation is most common. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, would contend that although it was stated in defence that Naresh Chander''s status as a landlord was not accepted, there had been a petition for fixation of fair rent brought about the same time immediately after the institution of this petition for eviction. The petition for eviction was filed on 24.03.1988 while the petition for fixation of fair rent had been filed on 08.04.1998. The learned counsel would state that the fair rent was fixed on the admission of the status of Naresh Chander as the landlord and, therefore, the question of denial of the petitioner''s status as such cannot arise. I have called for the records of the case relating to fixation of fair rent, which had obtained finality before this Court in Civil Revision No. 2736 of 1991 to apprise myself about the nature of contest between parties and whether the tenant had admitted to Naresh Chander''s status as the landlord. The Rent Controller, while disposing of the petition for fair rent in his order dated 20.07.1990, has observed thus,

...Both the counsel have also admitted at the bar that Naresh Chander was accepting the rent and issuing the receipt and thus he was landlord qua respondent. As the present landlord had already filed an application for ejectment on the ground of sub-letting....

This statement extracted shows that whatever had been the defence in the pleadings, the parties admitted at the bar that the rent was being paid to Naresh Chander and that he was issuing receipts. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that notwithstanding these observation, it must be still possible for a tenant to contend that the payment of rent or the issuance of receipts as recited in the order, ought not to be taken as admission of Naresh Chander''s status as a landlord. Admissions are made by parties either themselves or through their lawfully constituted attorneys. Admission again is always potent, for, it makes irrelevant the need for further proof under the scheme of the Evidence Act. Admission could be explained and in this case, if the tenant was trying to show that admission was done under certain specified contingencies and it was not meant to be acted unequivocally, then such an explanation brought by the tenant could be countenanced. There cannot be a situation as it is now sought to be done by the learned counsel that the case must proceed to examine afresh whether Naresh Chander was a landlord and whether he was entitled to receive the rents. The conduct of the tenant in paying the rent to a person and the issuance of receipts by such person acting as a landlord of the premises brings about a state of affairs that constitutes a jural relationship of tenancy that is understood in law as constituting estoppel in pais. There is no requirement in law that the tenancy must be only through an instrument. A tenancy could just as well be oral. If there had been a contract of tenancy entered into by the tenant with Naresh Chander''s father Inderjit, the subsequent payment to his son who received the rents on his own behalf must be taken as constituting a lawful attornment resulting in commencement of a tenancy in favour of Naresh Chander himself, so long as he was not shown to be acting as the agent of his father. I reject therefore the contention that it was still possible for a tenant to contend that Naresh Chander was not the landlord and that there had been no form of attornment. The payment of rents and the receipts issued will be evidence of such attornment and the tenant will be estopped from contending otherwise.

It was contended by the landlord that the tenancy had been only in favour of Sube Singh and not in favour of the Haryana Khadi Mandal. I have seen through the copy of the rent note executed. It is recited in the body of the document that Sube Singh was taking the property for rent. At the foot of the document where the parties have signed, Sube Singh has described himself as Manager of the Haryana Khadi Mandal. A contemporaneous document brought before the Court was a letter written by the Haryana Khadi Mandal forsaking yet another property that it was holding on rent on the ground that it was taking a fresh tenancy of the property which is now in dispute. Though this document itself cannot bind the landlord, I will take this as relevant piece of evidence explaining that Sube Singh was taking the property only in the capacity as a Manager and not in his individual capacity. The claim to sub-tenancy in the manner brought about in the petition that Sube Singh had sublet the premises to the second respondent cannot be accepted.

However, during the pendency of the proceedings itself, the petitioner, namely, the Punjab Khadi Mandal, had moved an application for impleadment before the Rent Controller and obtained an order to be arrayed as the 3rd respondent in the Rent Control petition. If the 3rd respondent came on record as a successor-in-interest, then on its own admission, such successor was claiming a right under the scheme of amalgamation that had taken over the assets of Haryana Khadi Mandal. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord would contend that if ever the contention were to be that Sube Singh was acting only on behalf of Haryana Khadi Mandal and that the actual conduct of business by the Haryana Khadi Mandal did not constitute a sub-tenancy, the fact that the property went to the hands of a new entity, namely, the Punjab Khadi Mandal itself must be taken to constitute a statutory violation contemplated u/s 13(2)(ii) that there was a transfer of the demised premise without written concurrence of the landlord. Subletting and transfer without consent have been put on the same footing and that in terms of the decisions of this Court in Ms Produce Exchange Corporation limited Hoshiarpur v. Som Nath s/o. Nanak Chand and, others, 1983 H.R.R. 303 and Singer India Ltd. Vs. Chander Mohan Chadha and Others, a lease in favour of an entity amalgamated with yet another entity constitutes a transfer and such a transfer in the hands of a new entity without the concurrence of the landlord amounted to an actionable wrong liable for eviction under the relevant provisions of the Rent Act. It must be noticed that the decision of this Court in M/s. Produce Exchange''s (supra) was actually in relation to the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act while dealing with Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. The provisions of the Haryana Act are verbatim the same. The Supreme Court decision (supra) was rendered in a similar context while dealing with the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that the transfer of interest has taken place subsequent to the petition, and as a subsequent event giving rise to a fresh cause of action, the petition filed stating that Haryana Khadi Mandal had become the sub-tenant could not give a justification for eviction now. A subsequent event that can give a new cause of action could be considered even at the appellate or revision stage in Rent Control proceedings to support a ground available for eviction already. A new cause of action for a different ground which is not already stated may perhaps require the parties to be directed to undertake a fresh litigation. However, the subsequent event is an admitted state of affairs, such as in this case the fact of a subsequent transfer through an amalgamation is brought at the instance of the transferee institution itself and the ground of eviction for subletting is already available for a landlord to pursue. The whole law of subsequent event as being relevant has come through rent control jurisdiction only and I have no doubt in my mind, therefore that the subsequent event of a transfer coming through an amalgamation to a new entity without the concurrence of landlord will fall foul of Section 13(2)(i)(a) of the Haryana Rent Eviction Act. A transfer of interest is a specie of a transaction covered through subletting and this is how the Section itself reads. On the admitted situation of the property having passed to the hands of a new entity to which the Haryana Khadi Mandal is amalgamated without the concurrence of landlord, the landlord ought to succeed. The eviction already ordered, therefore, requires no interference, although for additional reasons given in this judgment. The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed.