Civil Revision No.4045 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4045 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision:27.01.2009 Dharampal .............Petitioner Vs. Harjit Singh and others ...........Respondents 2. Civil Revision No.4046 of 2005 (O&M) Bikram Singh .............. Petitioner Vs. Harjit Singh and others .............Respondents Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate and Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The above two petitions are taken up and disposed of by common order. The properties in question are adjacent shops in the hands of two distinct tenants who were alleged to be the tenants under its original landlord-Harbans Kaur. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Court ordered eviction upholding the claim of the petitioners for the personal requirement. 2. The argument at the threshold was the issue regarding the Civil Revision No.4045 of 2005 (O&M) -2- existence or otherwise of the jural relationship of landlord and the tenant, between the parties. The case went on an admitted premise that after Harbans Kaur's death, property had devolved exclusively on her husband Tara Singh and that Tara Singh was receiving rent till the date of filing of the respective petitions by his sons born through his second wife-Kulwant Kaur. The receipt of rent was explained by Tara Singh himself offering evidence on behalf of the landlords that the rent was being received only on behalf of his sons. His attempt was to show that on an affidavit given before the Revenue Authorities the assessment of tax to the property had been transferred in favour of his sons born through his second wife. Learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the petition itself was an attempt through a crafty machination to get over the legal requirement under Section 13(3)(a) that the landlord suing for his occupation shall not a person occupying another building in the urban area concerned and that he shall not have vacated any such building without sufficient cause. The contention on behalf of the tenants was that the landlord Tara Singh had owned several other buildings and knowing that the interdict of Section 13(3) would operate, he had filed the petition through the sons placing evidence of the mutation entries as affording them a status as landlords. 3. The fundamental issue that the Court should be concerned in a case where the plea of the tenant was that the petitioners were not the landlords and there existed no form of relationship of landlord and tenant and that they have not paid rent to the petitioners at any point of time, the Rent Controller ought to have seen whether such a proof was available. Needless to point out that the landlord who comes to Court seeking for ejectment shall discharge the initial onus on his shoulder that there existed a relationship of landlord and the tenant. It could have been brought out Civil Revision No.4045 of 2005 (O&M) -3- either by a rent deed in express terms or by an implication. In the absence of a rent deed, the payment of rents and the receipts therefor would have provided the best substitute for the evidence of such relationship. Admittedly, Tara Singh alone was receiving the rent till the filing of petition. It is nowhere elicited through evidence of Tara Singh that he had directed attorment of the tenant to his sons after mutation of revenue entries took place in the names of his sons. No proof was again adduced at the instance of the petitioners that they had issued any notice prior to the filing of the petition about the case of transfer in whatever form and justifying their entitlement with the consent of the admitted landlord Tara Singh that the rents could be paid to them. I have gone through the evidence of Tara Singh and he admits that rent receipts which had been rendered till the filing of the petition were all issued by him in his own name and he had not described anywhere that he was issuing the receipts on behalf of any of his sons. 4. A matter so fundamental that would be for the Court to decide, namely, of the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant had been lost sight of both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The eviction ordered on the basis of the requirement of the sons filing the cases in their own right was clearly untenable if the father could not have maintained the petition for the obstacles of his ownership and occupation of several other buildings. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, therefore, suffer from the vice of non-consideration of the essential proof of existing jural relationship before the landlord could have approached the Rent Controller under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. 5. In C.R. No.4046 of 2005 apart from Tara Singh, his son, who was the petitioner, had examined himself and he has admitted to the fact that Civil Revision No.4045 of 2005 (O&M) -4- his father used to issue receipts of payment of rent regarding the shop in question to the respondent. In view of a clear admission by the petitioner who is a party in C.R. No.4046 of 2005 that it was his father who was receiving the rent and there had also been admitted fact that there had not been any form of tenancy in writing between him and the tenant, petition at the instance of the sons was not maintainable. eviction is not maintainable. 6. The orders of the Courts below are set aside and the civil revisions are allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 27, 2009 Pankaj*