Pushpa and Another vs Gurbax Singh and Another

Ranjit Singh, J.—The respondent-landlords had filed this petition u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short,

''the Act'') averring that the house in question was taken on rent by Darshan Lal (since deceased) at the rate of Rs. 110/- per month. The

petitioners, being legal heirs of Darshan Lal, were stated to be in possession of the house in question situated at Banga. They were in possession of

the portion of the house and their eviction was sought on the ground that respondent Gurbax Singh had retired from service of Himachal Pradesh

State Electricity Board on 30.4.2005. Thereafter, he intends to settle permanently at Banga Town and as such, needed the accommodation for his

and use of his married son, who is further blessed with a son. Necessary averment that except for this house, the landlords did not have any other

residential house in Banga Town and have not vacated any residential house in the Banga Town etc. were also made. The ground of building being

unfit was also raised to seek eviction of the petitioners.

The petitioners appearing in response to the notice raised certain preliminary objections, mainly, regarding non-joinder of necessary parties and

concealment of material facts. Otherwise the relationship of landlords and tenants was admitted and it was pleaded that the petitioners being legal

heirs of Darshan Lal had inherited this tenancy. The fact that Gurbax Singh, respondent, had retired from service was disputed and so too the need

of the premises for his personal use. It was submitted that the landlord was residing in Himachal Pradesh where he has build his own house and

none of his family member ever lived in the part of a house, which is in occupation of the petitioners as tenants. It is further pleaded that required

ingredients of Section 13-A of the Act are not fulfilled. The assertion in regard to the building being unfit and unsafe was also denied. The Rent

Controller, however, considered the entire aspect in detail and has directed the eviction of the petitioners from the demised house, giving them two

months'' time to vacate the premises.

Mr. Vikas Bahl, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has attacked the finding basically on three grounds. He would first contend that the order of

retirement as produced on record is issued by Secretary, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, and as such, would be invalid on the ground

that appointing authority of respondent, Gurbax Singh, was Chief Engineer and, thus, the aspect of retirement was not properly established from

the evidence and documents placed on record. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the case of The Punjab and Sind Bank and

Others Vs. Kashmir Singh Bhullar, . This was a case where landlord was a member of P.C.S. Judicial and sought ejectment of the tenant on the

strength of a certificate of retirement issued by Registrar of the High Court. This Court held that certificate not to be valid on the ground that his

appointing/removing authority is the State Government and that the landlord seeking ejectment of the tenant was required to produce a certificate

of retirement, which ought to be signed by the person who was competent to remove him from service. It is on this basis submitted before me that

the certificate of retirement, as produced, would not be a valid certificate to be taken into consideration to entertain this petition u/s 13-A of the

Act.

In this regard, the Court has referred to the cross-examination of Gurbax Singh, respondent, who disclosed that he had earlier joined the

services of Himachal Pradesh MPP in the year 1971, which was merged with the Electricity Board i.e. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board.

Upon this, the Secretary became the removing authority of respondent, Gurbax Singh, Landlord, Gurbax Singh has also disclosed that Secretary is

his appointing as well as removing authority once he has become an employee of the Electricity Board. He has further pointed out the Chief

Engineer is no longer his appointing or authority to terminate his services. The entire line of submission as advanced by learned Counsel for the

petitioners would, thus, fall flat.

The counsel for the petitioners would then submit that all the legal representatives were required to be impleaded on the death of Darshan Lal,

the tenant and that having not been done, no effective relief could be granted to the respondents. The contention is that Darshan Lal has left behind

two daughters, two sons and a widow. The respondent-landlord failed to implead the daughters of Darshan Lal, making the petition bad for non-

joinder of necessary party. In this regard, the counsel would refer to the case of Gian Devi Anand Vs. Jeevan Kumar and Others, . It has been

held in this case, decided under the Delhi Rent Control Act, that statutory tenancy in respect of a commercial premises is heritable and heirs of the

statutory tenant are entitled to the same protection against the eviction as afforded to the tenant under the Act. It is further observed in this case

that the heirs of the deceased tenant in the absence of any provision in the Rent Act to the contrary will step into the position of the deceased

tenant and all the rights and obligations of the deceased tenant including the protection afforded to the deceased tenant under the Act will devolve

on the heirs of the deceased tenant. From this, the counsel would contend that the tenancy on the death of Darshan Lal would devolve on all the

legal heirs including the married daughters and since they were not impleaded as L.Rs, the relief of eviction could not have been granted against the

remaining legal heirs who were so impleaded in place of late Darshan Lal. In this regard, reference is made to Biswadev Mukherjee v. Dr.

Gourmohan Das De 1998(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 603 (Calcutta) where suit for eviction against some of the legal heirs of the deceased tenant was filed

and no evidence was forth-coming that other legal heirs had surrendered the tenancy. The Court held that the suit was not maintainable and further

observed that if some of the legal heirs of the tenant are left out, in that event no effective decree of eviction can be passed. Support is also sought

from the observations made in the case of Textile Association (India) Bombay Unit Vs. Balmohan Gopal Kurup and another, . This was a case

where on a death of a tenant, leaving behind widow and two sons, landlord had filed a suit for eviction where one of the son was not impleaded.

Exparte decree was passed in favour of the landlord and it was held that this will not bind the respondent who was not a party and this decree can

not be kept alive against two other tenants. The record shows that Darshan Lal had left behind two married daughters, who were not impleaded as

parties on the death of said Darshan Lal. The respondent-landlord would rely on the ratio of law held in the case of Veer Piari Vs. Sudershan

Kumar and Others, where it was held that married daughter of the deceased tenant, who lived separately, would not be a necessary party. It is on

record, as admitted by Pushpa (petitioner No. 1) that her elder daughter is married at Mandi Gobindgarh whereas the second daughter is married

at Banga and both are residing happily in their matrimonial house. The law laid down in Biswadev Mukherjee''s case (supra) was distinguished by

the Court by observing that rent receipt in the said case in the name of tenant included the legal heirs not impleaded as respondents. It was in this

background perhaps their being impleaded as a party were held vital and to say that they had not surrendered their tenancy rights and, thus, were

necessary party. It has rightly been observed by the Court that the daughters are not in possession of any tenanted premises and were concededly

living happily away from the house under tenancy. They being not in possession of any part of the tenanted premises would not be necessary party

only because they happen to be daughters of the deceased tenant. They have also not come forward to dispute the claim of the respondent-

landlord. In these facts, which are peculiar to the present case, they can not be considered to be necessary party to have any effect on the order of

eviction as made.

Counsel has then made an attempt to submit that the need of the landlord as projected is not bona fide as he is having a residential house in

Himachal Pradesh where he is having his ration card as well. Counsel would also point out that one married son of the respondent-landlord is

staying at Delhi and as such, the need projected by the respondent-landlord for staying in the house is not bona fide. These are the mere assertions

made by the counsel and would not find any support from the evidence or material on record. Rather, in cross-examination, Pushpa (petitioner No.

1) admitted that one of the son of the landlord, Gurbax Singh, is residing on the first floor whereas the second son also visits Banga after every six

months and so also his daughter. It was also conceded that respondent-landlord has no other residential house in Banga. In this view of the matter,

this line of submissions pursued by counsel for the petitioner would not impress me to interfere in the finding recorded by Rent Controller in regard

to the bona fide need.

I do not find any valid reason to interfere in the impugned order and would, thus, dismiss the revision petition as it lacks merit.