Shyam Lal vs Balbir Singh Dhillon and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.

C.M. No. 17165-CII-2013 in C.R. No. 2163 of 2009,

C.M. No. 17164-CII-2013 in C.R. No. 2164 of 2009

C.M. No. 17179-CII-2013 in C.R. No. 2761 of 2009

Learned counsel for the non-applicant states that he has no objection to the applications being allowed but this would be without prejudice to the rights of the parties in any other proceeding, if pending.

Applications are allowed. Applicant-Lakhwinder Singh son of Narayan Singh is permitted to be impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the present revision petitions.

Office is directed to make necessary correction in the memo. Of parties.

C.R. Nos. 2163, 2164 and 2761 of 2009

By this order, I will dispose of three petitions namely C.R. Nos. 2163, 2164 and 2761 of 2009. The controversy involved is brief and centering around the claim of the respondent-landlord seeking eviction of the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent which fact is not being denied by the petitioners for the period set up in the petition but with a justification offered by disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant. The brief facts which are essential for the decision of the petition may be noticed.

Concededly the petitioners were tenant under one Gurdial Singh, who sold the demised premises to the respondent, namely, Balbir Singh in the year 1995 by virtue of a registered sale deed which came to be questioned at some point of time by the legal representatives of deceased Gurdial Singh. This, in fact, offered an excuse to the petitioners to dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant with the present respondent.

Even though the property was purchased by Balbir Singh in the year 1995, he preferred a rent petition in the year 1997 claiming arrears of rent from 20.7.1995 to June 1997 and seeking eviction of the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent. In this petition also, the petitioners took up the similar pleas that they had paid the rent to the LRs of original landlord i.e. Gurdial Singh and also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. The rent petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller but in appeal the findings were reversed. The Appellate Authority held that no rent was demanded by the landlord w.e.f. July 1997, therefore, the present petitioners could not be held liable for eviction if they acquired the knowledge of the respondent being a landlord in 1997 if the filing of the rent petition by the respondent-landlord should be construed to be a sufficient notice of the acquisition of ownership. It further held that the plea of the petitioners disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the present respondent and themselves had to be negated.

The findings of the Appellate Authority were not tested further. The present revision petitions had arisen from rent petitions filed by the respondent-landlord in the year 2004 claiming eviction of the petitioners again on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. July 1997 onwards. In these proceedings also, the petitioners took up similar pleas disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant and offering it as an excuse for nonpayment of rent.

Both the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority concluded in favour of the respondent which is now the cause of grievance to the petitioners. It may be noticed that the petitioners have raised this dispute about the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant ever since the respondent-landlord has initiated proceedings against them on the premise that the question of ownership is under challenge by the legal representatives of Gurdial Singh. It has been brought to the notice of this Court during the course of arguments that this challenge stands extinguished on the withdrawal of the suit by the plaintiff in the said case in the year 2010. No further attempt has been made to mount any other challenge.

In any case, even if it was so, the fact remains that in the earlier proceedings emanating from the rent proceedings initiated in the year 1997 and culminating in Rent Appeal No. 16 of 2004 decided on 18.8.2004 and which has attained finality, it was clearly held that the petitioners would be on notice regarding the acquisition of ownership by the respondent and would, thus, be entitled to pay the rent at least w.e.f. July 1997 i.e. the date of acquiring knowledge of the ownership. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to repeatedly question the status of the respondent as a landlord.

Tenancy has two important formulations: one the rent component which forms the bedrock of the relationship between a landlord and tenant and second the relationship itself.

A landlord, who is also the owner of the property, evidently inducts a tenant to put his property to a beneficial use which cannot be permitted to be put to peril at the hands of the tenant from whom an expectation of a beneficial consequence is expected by the landlord, by putting a question mark on landlord''s title of ownership itself. Such a conduct should weigh with the Courts while determining the rent proceedings by drawing adverse inferences against such tenants. In the given facts of the case, the petitioners who had knowledge of the acquisition of ownership in the year 1997 itself frustrated the attempts of the respondent-landlord since then and did not even care to pay the rent thereby destroying the bedrock of the relationship between a landlord and tenant and, thus, in the considered view of this Court, the petitioners have lost all legitimate rights to stay in the premises as they have offered no justification for not paying the rent which situation has been compounded further by taking a dishonest plea of negating the very relationship itself. The petitions are, therefore, held to be without any merit and are dismissed.