AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.V. Gupta, J.—This is land-lord''s petition in whose favour evicition order was passed by the Rent Controller but was set aside in appeal. S.S. Jain Sabha, a registered body, sought ejectment of its tenant Smt. Krishna Devi from the demised premises consisting of one double-storeyed house on the allegations that she was employed as Headmistress of this Pathshala and this house was given to her on rent at the rate of Rs 20/- per month being Headmistress of the school and she was only entitled to reside therein upon the period she remained under the employment of the institution She gave resignation from the post of Headmistress on 9th April, 1969 and at the time she had given an undertaking that she will vacate the premises on her leaving the job and she will deliver the possession to the Society. In her letter of resignation marked ''A'' dated 9th April, 1969 she had also written that she would vacate the house immediately and will hand over the possession to the Society but in spite of that she had not delivered the possession. On these allegations ejectment application was filed on 28th September. 1974. In the written statement filed on behalf of Respondent Krishna Devi, she controverted the allegations made in the ejectment application. She denied that the premises in dispute were under the ownership of the Society. She maintained that she had not taken the house on rent from the Society and, therefore, no relationship of land-lord and tenant existed between the partieS.S.he further pleaded that the house in question was in her adverse possession since 1984 and thus she had become its owner. In the replication filed on behalf of the land-lord Society it was reiterated that the house in dispute was given to Krishna Devi in her capacity as teacheress in lieu of house rent allowance of Rs 20/- P. M. She could live in the house only up till the time she continued serving the school. It was denied that either she or her husband had become owner of the house by way of adverse possession. It was also made clear that when Krishna Devi had taken employment under the Society, the school used to run in the demised house. Thereafter the school was shifted to the newly constructed building but she continued to live in the house in lieu af house rent allowance of Rs. 20/- P. M.
Thus the main controversy between the parties was as to whether there was relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties or not. On trial the learned Rent Controller after discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that Krishna Devi was appointed Headmistress of Jain Girls School, Hansi, on 2nd February, 1948 that the house in dispute was given to her on the condition that she will pay the rent of this house at the rate of Rs. 20/- (sic)P. M. It was proved that the onwer of the demised premises is Local Jain Sabha and thus there was relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties. It was also held that the house in dispute was given to her upto the time she was in service and after that she was liable to vacate the same on leaving the job Since she failed to vacate the premises after her resignation on 9th April. 1969 she was liable to ejectment for nonpayment of rent as well as the house in dispute was required for the residence of the pilgrims as the house was used for religious purpose. The plea of Krishna Devi that her husband was in hostile possession of the house was negatived as she failed to produce her husband in the witness-box. Consequently, eviction order was passed. In appeal the Appellant authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller with regard to the relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside.
The learned Counsel for the land-lord submitted that the finding of the Rent Controller with regard to the relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily on surmises and conjectures. According to the learned Counsel, Krishna Devi never pleaded that she was a licencee and, therefore, the appellate authority had made out a new case for her in appeal. Thug argued the learned Counsel that the findings of the appellate authority in this behalf are vitiated and are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there was no relationship of the land lord and tenant between the patties, there was no evidence on the record to show that Krishna Devi was ever inducted as a tenant by the land lord Society. According to the learned Counsel she was already in hostile occupation of the house in dispute along with her husband and therefore had become its owner by adverse possession.
It may be stated here that during the pendency of this petition Krishna Devi died and her legal representatives were brought on the record vide this Court''s order dated 11th March, 1987.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record I am of the considered view that the whole approach of the appellate authority in this behalf is wrong illegal and misconceived. From the evidence led by the land lord Society it has been held by the appellate authority as well that Krishna Devi had occupied the house in question and enjoyed its use when instead of raising her salary she was allowed to live therein as a rent free residence. The appellate authority further came to the conclusion that there by she had not become a tenant of the Society because there was no lease in her favour and there was also no transfer of any interest in the house in question. The appellate authority has further observed, "neither any rent note nor any receipt nor any other document is available on record showing that Smt. Krishna Devi had at any time, given rent of the house in question to the Respondent Society." The said observations are wholly misconceived because the question of showing any receipt did not arise as Krishna Devi was allowed to keep the premises in lieu of the house rent allowance of Rs. 20/- till she was in service. The letter of resignation marked ''A'' has been duly proved by the land-lord and there was no rebuttal on behalf of Krishna Devi. She even did not produce her husband to deny his signatures thereon. It has been mentioned in letter marked ''A'' that the house in dispute is the property of Jain Sabha, Hansi and that the same would be vacated, it being occupied upon the service of Krishna Devi but instead of that according to the appellate authority that would not mean that any admission is contained therein that she was the tenant of the Society. This approach is again wrong and illegal. Thus from the evidence on the record, particularly the document marked ''A'', it is amply proved on the record that Krishna Devi was occupying the premises in dispute being in the service of the Society which house was given to her in lieu of house rent allowance of Rs. 20/-. That being so, she was liable to ejectment after she ceased to be in the employment of the land-lord Society as contemplated u/s 13(3) (iii) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Edviction) Act, 1973. It reads as under:
13 (3). A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put landlord in possession:
(a) in the case of a residential building, if,-
xx xx xx xx xx
(iii) it was let to the tenant for use as a residence by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord and the tenant has ceased, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, to be in such service or employment;
Provided that where the tenant is a workman who has been discharged by the landlord from his service or employment in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, he shall not be liable to be evicted until the competent authority under that Act confirms the order of discharge or dismissal made against him by the landlord;
The question that Krishna Devi was occupying the premises as a licensee was never the case set up by her in her written statement. She claimed herself to be the owner by way of adverse possession. Therefore, no new case could be made out for her by the appellate authority at the stage of an appeal.
Since in these proceedings the authorities under the Act are only to see as to whether the relationship of land-lord and tenant existed between the parties or not, the other questions cannot be gone into. As observed earlier, from the evidence on record it is proved that there was relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties and Krishna Devi was allowed to use the house in dispute for her residence for the reason of her being in service of the land-lord Society as this house was given to her in lieu of her house rent allowance of Rs. 20/- P. M. In the year 1954, though she was in service much earlier thereto Under the circumstances she he came the tenant under the land-lord Society in the year 1954 and that being so she was liable to ejectement under said provision of Section 13(3) (iii) ibid. The approach of the Rent Controller in this behalf was correct but the finding was reversed in appeal arbitrarily on surmises and conjectures. Consequently, this petition succeeds, the order of the appellate authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing ejectment of the Respondent is restored with costs.