Civil Revision No. 6762 of 2009 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6762 of 2009 Date of decision : 25.3.2010 Naveender P.K.Singh ....Petitioner Versus P.K.Sharma ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinvanshu Jain, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. Petitioner herein is an objector who was non-suited by the learned Executing Court in the matter of an objection petition (Annexure P-10) filed by her to resist eviction from the premises under her occupation, at the hands of the respondent-landlord in execution of an eviction order he had secured against her mother, in pursuance of a consensual agreement, on 5.12.2006. A statement of facts, at the very outset, would facilitate appropriate appreciation of the controversy. Respondent-P.K.Sharma( hereinafter referred to as the landlord) is owner of House No.197, Shivalik Enclave, Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted premises). He filed an ejectment application against Mst. Surinder Kaur (mother of petitioner herein- Civil Revision No. 6762 of 2009 -2- ***** since deceased) on an averment that the latter was in possession of the tenanted premises as a tenant and had executed a rent note dated 22.10.2003 in the relevant behalf and that she was in arrears of rent with effect from 1.9.2006 which she had not paid up inspite of repeated requests to that effect. Also raised therein was a plea that Mst. Surinder Kaur aforementioned had sublet the tenanted premises to her younger daughter Ms. Naveender P.K.Singh i.e. petitioner herein and had herself shifted to House No.292, Sector 7, Panchkula after delivering exclusive possession of the tenanted premises to her daughter aforementioned without the consent of the landlord. That petition ended in a consensual arrangement between the parties thereto i.e. the landlord and Mst. Surinder Kaur aforementioned. The terms and conditions of the compromise were documented vide compromise deed Ex. C1. Mst. Surinder Kaur made a statement before the learned Rent Controller conceding the factum of compromise and also the contents of the rent note Ex. C2. While conceding that she was in arrears of rent and had sublet the tenanted premises, she undertook to vacate the tenanted premises by 28.2.2007. The landlord made a statement therein that he would not execute the order of ejectment till 28.2.2007 and also he would not claim any future rent from her. It was, however, agreed that Mst. Surinder Kaur shall continue to bear the water and electricity charges as long as she remains in possession of the tenanted premises aforementioned. The landlord also waived the arrears of rent due from Mst. Surinder Kaur. That order (Annexure P-9) came to be Civil Revision No. 6762 of 2009 -3- ***** granted on 5.12.2006. In the meantime, the petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 12 East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on averments that she (and members of her family) is in possession of the premises aforementioned, as a tenant, since the year 2000; that there are certain items in the tenanted premises which require repairs, that the landlord had been telephonically requested a number of times to get the needful done but he had declined to perform his statutory duty to keep the tenanted premises in good condition and to get the required repairs effected. That petition (under Section 12 of the Act) came to be allowed exparte, vide judgment (Annexure P-6) dated 29.11.2007. The learned Rent Controller noticed, in the course thereof, that the landlord had not opted to contest the claim inspite of the personal service. The petitioner herein also filed an objection petition before the Executing Court averring, in the course thereof, that she is in possession of the tenanted premises, as a tenant under the landlord and that the landlord wants to oust her forcibly on the basis of compromised-based ejectment order (Annexure P-9) which he had obtained in collusion with Mst. Surinder Kaur. In that very context, the averment made by the petitioner-objector was that she is in occupation of the tenanted premises since the year 2000; that her family and mother had been living therein along with her; that her sister is married to a property dealer who (along with her sister) had Civil Revision No. 6762 of 2009 -4- ***** in order to usurp the property belonging to the petitioner's mother, taken her away sometime during the month of January/February, 2005 and her mother had connived with the landlord to make a statement before the Rent Controller with a view to hurt her interest. The further plea, raised in the context, is that the impugned compromise was a farcical affair inasmuch as statements in terms of the compromise are indicated to have been made on a date the matter was not listed for hearing and there was no understandable reason why Mst. Surinder Kaur would have conceded a decree for ejectment except that she opted to collude with the landlord with a view to hurt the interest of the petitioner-objector. The rent note dated 22.10.2003 was described to be an act of forgery. It was further averred by the petitioner-objector, in the context, that her mother suffered from a number of diseases and was bed ridden. The further plea, raised in the context, was that the impugned ejectment order is not valid in the eyes of law inasmuch as the learned Rent Controller had not recorded therein a satisfaction that a case for ejectment had been made out in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was also the plea of the petitioner- objector that she has strained relations with the landlord and she had lodged an FIR (NO.236 dated 17.2.2006) against him. The learned Executing Court did not find itself in agreement with the view advocated on behalf of the petitioner- objector which (view) was negatived, vide order dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure P-1). The order came to be affirmed in appeal by the learned Civil Revision No. 6762 of 2009 -5- ***** Appellate Authority. The petitioner-objector is in revision against it. It was argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the very outset, that the impugned compromise is plainly invalid in law inasmuch as the learned Rent Controller had not recorded therein its own satisfaction about the validity of the agreed ground of ejectment. Insofar as the rent note dated 22.10.2003 is concerned, the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is that it is an act of forgery. The plea raised is devoid of force. Essentially, the validity or otherwise of a such like compromise is a matter between the parties thereto. Even otherwise, the petitioner-objector cannot be heard to assail the validity of that compromise, unless and until she applies for and is able to obtain the invalidation thereof. It is not even averred on behalf of the petitioner herein that she had applied for the invalidation of the impugned compromise by filing an independent suit. It was, then, argued with vehemence by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the landlord/respondent had tried to overreach the law by having refrained from contesting the petition filed by the petitioner-objector under Section 12 of the Act and he did not attend the proceedings inspite of that fact that (personal) service had been effected upon him. The plea was contested by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent who argued that there was no Civil Revision No. 6762 of 2009 -6- ***** material obtaining on the record to indicate that (personal) service had been effected upon the landlord. In order to buttress that plea, he has placed on record photocopies of the interim orders starting from 15.4.2006. A perusal thereof would indicate that filing of the petition was ordered to be notified to the landlord vide order dated 15.4.2006 for 12.6.2006. On that date, summons issued to the landlord through registered post had been received unclaimed and service upon him was ordered to be issued by way of munadi, by beat of drums, in the locality of the respondent and also by registered post. On 6.10.2006, a registered cover forwarded to the landlord had been received unserved. The postal authorities recorded a report that none claimed the registered envelope. Thereafter, the petitioner-objector applied for effecting of service upon the respondent through general attorney of the latter. The leave was granted by the learned Rent Controller on 29.5.2007. The learned Rent Controller ordered effecting of substituted service upon the landlord though the attorney representing the landlord in the proceedings pending before the learned Rent Controller. It was made clear in that order that if the attorney refused to accept the service “or appears and submit that he is not attorney, then the substituted service shall be conducted against the respondent.” It was ultimately on 22.9.2007 that it was announced to the learned Rent Controller that the attorney aforementioned was not holding a General Power of Attorney and that he was a special attorney meant for the purpose of that case. The Rent Controller noticed that publication had already been effected against the respondent- Civil Revision No. 6762 of 2009 -7- ***** landlord. Proclamation, by means of a Court notice in the indicated newspaper, had been effected and the matter was adjourned for 18.9.2007. The suit came to be decreed, vide judgment dated 29.11.2007. It is not even an averment on behalf of the petitioner that she had got the indicated repair job ( indicated in the course of the petition filed by her against the landlord under Section 12 of the Act). done. Even at the cost of repetition, it may be pointed out that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued with vehemence, in the context, that an inference had to be drawn against the landlord because he had refrained from entering appearance and resisting the plea filed by petitioner herein ( and also therein). In the light of these facts, the learned Rent Controlled seized of the plea under Section 12 of the Act was not correct in noticing that service had been effected from the landlord. Further, in the light of of those facts, the petitioner herein cannot legitimately raise a point that the landlord intentionally refrained from contesting the petition aforementioned. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, then, argued that relations between the petitioner- objector and her landlord were strained and it is that fact that only which impelled the landlord to conspire with her mother in order to be able to bring on record some material, availability of which could cause avoidable embarrassment to the petitioner herein. It may be noticed, in the context, that the FIR Civil Revision No. 6762 of 2009 -8- ***** aforementioned had been lodged by the petitioner herein against Renuka Sharma wife of Pardeep Sharma and Usha Sharma wife of Sandeep Sharma, and the only allegation in the course thereof was that those ladies (who are related to the landlord) had locked her up etc. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent, has placed on record certified copy of the examination-in-chief conducted on behalf of the respondent upon the petitioner herself. It would be pertinent to notice here that the petitioner-objector had, in a bid to establish that she was, infact, a tenant on the tenanted premises under the landlord, raised a plea that she had been paying the rent amount through cheques and also directly to Naman Sharma, a son of the landlord. There is, it may be noticed, complete want of evidence to prove that the petitioner-objector did hand over cheques representing the rent amount to the landlord or that the latter had encashed the same. Insofar as the petitioner-objector is concerned, she appeared as PW-1 in that case but could not stand the scrutiny in the course of the cross-examination. For example, PW-1 Ms. Naveeder PK.Singh conceded, in the course of the cross- examination, that she had not brought along (on the date she was cross-examined in the Court) any pay-in slip by virtue of which she may have deposited the rent amount in the account of P.K.Sharma. She also did not recollect whether she paid rent through cheques to landlord (“I do not recollect whether I paid rent through cheque to P.K.Sharma”). Insofar as the receipts are concerned, those appear on small slips and purport to have been issued by a son of Civil Revision No. 6762 of 2009 -9- ***** respondent-landlord. The plea raised by the petitioner herein, in the context, was that she was paying rent for the tenanted premises to a son of the respondent-landlord as the latter had desired her to do that. It is, thus, evident from a perusal of the above narration of facts that there is not even a bit of documentation indicating the averred relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties herein. Insofar as the refrain on the part of the landlord in entering appearance in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act is concerned, it does not in any case enure for the benefit of the petitioner-objector. It would not be out of place to point out that relevant order granted by the learned Trial Court indicates as if personal service had been effected upon the landlord. Infact, no personal service in those proceedings ever came to be effected upon the landlord. This observation stems from a perusal of the photocopies of the interim orders (granted by the learned Rent Controller in that case) which were shown to the Court at the time of presentation and which are presently a part of record of this case. Even otherwise, insofar as the averred rent receipts are concerned, those happen to be only six in number and the petitioner- objector had raised a precise plea that she had been paying rent otherwise through cheques. In that view of things, it was incumbent upon the petitioner herein to produce the relevant record. Apart from the fact that the petitioner had not been able to adduce any evidence to prove that she ever had any direct relationship with the Civil Revision No. 6762 of 2009 -10- ***** landlord and also the fact that there is no rent note to document the averred relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner herein and respondent, it was argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein had indicated to a large number of public authorities (with whom she had dealings) that she is living in the tenanted premises. Attention of this Court, in pursuance thereof, was invited towards a letter dated 6.12.2005 vide which she was informed by Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, that she has been empanelled by the Union of India. She is further proved to have given the address (of tenanted premises) to the IFB authorities with which she had entered a service contract for the indicated period. The following facts are evident from the above discussion:- 1. The petitioner-objector has not been able to place on record any rent note to prove that there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the respondent. 2. She does not appear to have raised a claim at an earlier point of time to the effect that the authorities empanelling her or the authority entering into annual service contract (i.e. IFB) had announced the documentation aforementioned to the landlord or that the latter ( i.e. the landlord) was in the know thereof. 3. Insofar as the refrain on the part of the landlord in contesting the proceedings under Section 12 Civil Revision No. 6762 of 2009 -11- ***** of the Act is concerned, there also the objector-petitioner is not on a firmer footing. It would be apparent, from a perusal of the record, that it is not a case of effecting of personal service but substituted service. The impugned order (Annexure P-11) otherwise shows (incorrectly apparently) that the respondent-landlord had been personally served. The petitioner-objector cannot, thus, be held entitled to insist upon the invalidation of the impugned orders. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that it was incumbent upon the Executing Court to have framed issues on points of controversy and to have, then, proceeded to enter into an adjudicatory exercise. It was also argued that the ejectment petition filed by the landlord against the mother of the petitioner-objector was meaning less inasmuch as latter (petitioner-objector) was not made a party thereto. Insofar as the non joining (as a party) of a tenant to a such like petition is concerned, the law on the point was authoritatively laid down by a Single Bench in Suraj Bhan Vs. 7th Additional District Judge, Meerut and others 2008(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 86 that a sub-tenant is not a necessary party to an ejectment proceeding of the the indicated category. That view was taken by the Allahabad High court. A similar view was obtained by a learned Single Bench of this Court in Reema Rani Vs. Gurmukh Singh and Civil Revision No. 6762 of 2009 -12- ***** others 2004 (3) P.L.R.576. Insofar as the former part of the plea raised is concerned, there also the petitioner is not on a firmer footing. It was held in Som Parkash Vs. Santosh Rani 1996 (2) R.C.R.(Rent) 270 and Bikram Singh Vs. Surjit Singh and thers 2004 (3) P.L.R. 129 that there is no compulsion on the part of the Executing Court to proceed in the matter only after framing of issues. It is apparent from the above discussion that rent note (Ex.C2) documents the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent- landlord and the mother of the petitioner herein. Further, the petitioner- objector had not been able to place on record any material to prove that she was a direct tenant under the landlord or that she had paid rent to the landlord or to Naman Sharma under the instructions of the landlord. Infact, those receipts do not, at all, indicate the premises in respect of which amount was being paid. In the light of foregoing discussion, I am of the view that there is no force in the presentation that the learned Executing Court was under a compulsion to frame the issues, record evidence thereupon and to record a finding thereafter. This is particularly so because the petitioner herein has not been able to make out a case on the basis whereof it could be said that there was prima-facie justification requiring the Executing Court to embark upon an enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the facts. The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly. The petitioner shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. March 25, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE