Sardarni Kirpal Kaur vs Bhagwant Rai

Grover, J.—One Kuldip Singh owned a Serai in Patiala alongwith some other property. On 29th July 1957 he executed a registered deed of gift in favour of his wife by virtue of which he gifted the Serai to his wife as also another property. He further transferred the leases in her favour in respect of the tenancy of Bhagwant Rai who was occupying the Serai as Kuldip Singh''s tenant. The donor died in August 1957. In April 1959 Kirpal Kaur filed an application of eviction against the tenant, Bhagwant Rai, alleging that he had not paid up rent and the arrears amounting to Rs. 33,00/-. Among other pleas, the tenant raised the plea that Kirpal Kaur was not a landlord within the meaning of section 2(c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. A second application was instituted by her for eviction on the ground that the rent for the subsequent period had not been paid. The same pleas were raised by the tenant in this petition also. The Rent Controller framed an issue as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. It appears that the tenant later on pressed for the framing of an additional issue and the Rent Controller ordered that an additional issue be framed in the following terms-

Whether the applicant is a landlord of the property in dispute on the basis of a valid gift?

Civil Revisions Nos. 298 of 1960 and 565 of 1960 have been preferred by Kirpal Kaur against the order of the Rent Controller directing that the additional issue be framed in the terms mentioned above.

The tenant filed some application u/s 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act to the effect that he wanted certain repairs to be carried out. In that petition he impleaded not only Kirpal Kaur but also the sons and daughter of Kuldip Singh. In that application also an issue similar to the one framed in the other proceedings has been framed by the Rent Controller and the third Revision No. 391 of 1961 is directed against that order. All the three revision petitions shall stand disposed of by this judgment.

Mr. Puran Chand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Kirpal Kaur, submits that in these proceedings it is not open to the tenant to raise the question of validity of the gift on the ground on which he has actually raised it, namely, that the property in dispute belonged to joint Hindu family and Kuldip Singh could not have made a valid gift in favour of Kirpal Kaur because it was not open to him to alienate coparcenary property. The gift deed was actually executed and got registered by Kuldip Singh and by virtue of the provisions contained in section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act it would be perfectly good gift and would transfer title in the property to Kirpal Kaur. If the property in dispute was joint Hindu family property, it may be that the sons of Kuldip Singh may be in a position to have the gift avoided by proper proceedings in a Court of Law but the gift not being void it is not open to a third party who is the tenant in the present case to challenge the validity of the gift. As he has no locus standi to object to the validity of the gift, the question of framing any issue on this point cannot possibly arise.

Mr. Babu Ram Aggarwal has invited my attention to certain authorities, out of which mention need be made of Sudhir Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Majumdar and Another, in which it is laid down that a Special Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide questions which are necessary for the purpose of giving or refusing relief under the particular statute. It is pointed out that the Rent Controller can grant relief only if the relationship of landlord and tenant exists. If it does not exist, then eviction cannot possibly be ordered by the Rent Controller. It is, therefore, for the Rent Controller to decide the question of title of the landlord. Generally speaking that principle may not be open to challenge but in the present case, as stated before, the only objection which has been raised by the tenant to the title of the petitioner is that the gift in her favour by her husband was not valid because the property was coparcenary property. That as held by me before, is a matter which only the sons can agitate and it is not open to the tenant to dispute the validity of the gift. In Mt. Saraswati Kuar Vs. Mahabir Prasad and Others a Division Bench consisting of Sulaiman J. (as he then was) and Kendall J. has held that where a father of a joint Hindu family makes gift of some family property to his wife without the consent of the other members of the family the gift is voidable at the instance of other members. An attaching creditor of the father is not entitled to exercise that right in his favour and to get the deed invalidated.

Actually it appears that the tenant has some sort of understanding with the sons of Kuldip Singh in the present case and an attempt is being made to have the dispute between the sons and the mother decided in these proceedings. Mr. Puran Chand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has produced a certified copy of a judgment of Shri Om Parkash Aggarwal, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Patiala, dated 20th May 1961 as also of 31st May 1961. The sons and daughter of Kuldip Singh had filed a suit for a declaration that the gift deed dated 29th July 1957 executed by Kuldip Singh in favour of Kirpal Kaur was void and ineffectual as the suit property belonged to the joint Hindu family. The preliminary issue raised was whether the plaint was properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. The Court found that it was not properly valued and granted time for amending the plaint and for making up the deficiency in court-fee. This was not done and the suit was finally dismissed on 31st May 1931. I am satisfied that in the present case there was no justification for the Rent Controller to frame the additional issue in which the question about the validity of the gift has been allowed to be raised. I would allow all these three petitions and direct that the issue relating to the validity of the gift deed be deleted in all the three proceedings.

The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 27th April 1962. As the proceedings have been considerably delayed already, he should proceed to decide the matters pending before him with reasonable expedition. The petitioner shall be entitled to her costs in this Court.