Smt. Subhadra Chauhan and Another vs Miss Vijay Vig

Kuldip Singh, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 3.3.2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Court No. 1., Shimla in Case No. 9/2 of 2003 directing the petitioners herein to put the respondent herein in vacant possession of the premises in question.

The facts, in brief, are that respondent had filed a petition under 15(2) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short, the Act) against the petitioners claiming herself to be the specified landlord. The petitioners contested the petition and sought leave to defend the petition on the ground that benefit of 15(1)(2) of the Act is not available to the respondent. The premises is owned by Gitawanti, Vijay Kumari, Parvesh Kumari, Parveen Lata, Deviya Gopinder Nath, Jatinder Nath etc. The respondent is not competent to file the petition. The necessary parties have also not been impleaded in the petition. The respondent has also not filed any document through which it could be inferred that she is entitled to recover the possession under 15 of the Act. She has also failed to file a requisite certificate alongwith the petition, which is mandatory. The petition lacks material particulars. The respondent is in occupation of two rooms, kitchen and bath in Jawahar Cottage, Sanjauli, Shimla and therefore, she is not entitled to invoke 15 of the Act. The claim of the respondent is not bonafide. The respondent does not want to reside permanently at Shimla. The respondent opposed the leave to contest application and reiterated her stand.

The learned Rent Controller, Court No. 1, Shimla vide order dated 3.3.2004 rejected the plea of petitioners for leave to contest the petition and passed the ejectment order, which has been assailed by the petitioners in the present revision.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent is one of the co-sharers of the demised premises. She is not competent to take the benefit of 15 of the Act in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Niranjan Dass Vs. Trilok Chand, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 196 The learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and has submitted that learned Rent Controller has considered the case of the parties and has rightly refused to grant leave to the petitioners. He has submitted that no fault can be found in the impugned order whereby ejectment order has been passed against the petitioners.

The short controversy involved in the petition is to the effect whether respondent can take the benefit of 15(1)(2) of the Act or in other words, the respondent is a specified landlord when admittedly she is one of the co-sharers of the premises in question. In Niranjan Dass (supra), the apex court has noticed 15(2) of the Act and held as follows:

Section 2(i) of the Act defines a specific landlord as follows: "That the landlord must be a person who is entitled to receive the rent." This means a legal entitlement. Secondly, such an entitlement, to receive the rent must be on his own account. Where, therefore, admittedly a property by devolution has devolved on five co-owners, it cannot be said that one of the co-owners (the landlord in this case) is legally entitled to receive on his own account. No doubt, what is pressed into service is an affidavit dated 11/8/1991 which has come to be filed pending Civil in this Court. This affidavit states the respondent-landlord is entitled to receive the rent on his own account and he has been managing the property so long. We are unable to conclude the title could be renounced in this fashion and the entitlement could be conferred on the respondent through this affidavit. Besides this has come to be filed after the eleventh hour however before the twelfth. Whatever it may be, this cannot make the landlord legally entitled to receive the rent on his own account.

It is the case of the parties that the premises in question devolved on the respondent and other co-sharers. In view of law laid down by apex court in Niranjan Dass (supra), it cannot be said that respondent a co-owner is exclusively entitled to receive the rent on her own account. The respondent in these circumstances cannot take benefit of 15 (1)(2) of the Act. The legal position involved in the present case is squarely covered by Niranjan Dass case (supra), hence the impugned order dated 3.3.2004 is not sustainable. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and order dated 3.3.2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Court No. 1, Shimla in case No. 9/2 of 2003 is set-aside and the petition of respondent is dismissed.