C.R.No.4381 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.4381 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.10.2011. T.S.Chahal ...Petitioner. Vs. Lakshmi Narain Sharma and others ....Respondents. Coram: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. Present: Mr.J.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. In the instant revision petition, the petitioner herein has challenged the impugned order dated 5.10.2010 of Rent Controller ordering his eviction from the demised premises and the judgment dated 3.3.2011 of the Appellate Authority dismissing his appeal . The necessary facts emanating from the instant revision petition are that Shri Krishan Sarup Sharma landlord (predecessor-in- interest of the respondents) filed the instant eviction petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises on the averments that the petitioner was inducted in the demised premises as a care taker. However, petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the landlord from interfering into his possession over the demised premises illegally/forcibly alleging himself to be a tenant in the suit property at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month with effect from May 1998. Though the respondent-landlord had disputed the aforesaid status of the petitioner as C.R.No.4381 of 2011 2 tenant in the demised premises, but due to the aforesaid litigation admitting the petitioner to be a tenant the instant ejectment petition has been filed on the ground of non payment of rent and that he requires the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. In his reply to the ejectment application, petitioner came up with a defence that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and, thus, the ejectment application was not maintainable. Both the authorities below held that the petitioner was estopped from denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as he himself has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction claiming himself as a tenant. The relevant observations of the Appellate Authority in this regard reads thus:- “ As regards the first plea taken by the appellant that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties for this it can be said that even though the respondent has not actually claimed the appellant to be a tenant in the premises in question but at the same time the appellant is stopped from denying the relationship between the parties because he himself has admitted that he is a tenant under the respondent, for this Ex.P28 is on record which is a certified copy of the plaint in the suit filed by the appellant against the respondent in which relief for permanent injunction was claimed that the appellant was a tenant in the premises in question which was rented out to him by the respondent who was the owner of the said premises in the month of May 1998 @ Rs.1500/- per month. It was the case of the appellant that he was a tenant in the said premises and the respondent was landlord. In short, the modus-operandi of the appellant is that when he wanted relief from the Court he has cleverly given his C.R.No.4381 of 2011 3 status as tenant in the premises in question and his possession in the capacity of a tenant in the said premises. After getting the desired relief, when the respondent landlord has sought the eviction of the appellant tenant by taking the proper course provided in law by moving a petition for eviction, the appellant is now estopped from denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In addition to this it can be highlighted that the respondent on the other hand claimed in his petition itself that he accepts the version of the appellant as mentioned in the civil suit that the appellant is a tenant in the premises in question. Thus, the above discussed being the possession it does not now lie in the mouth of the appellant to dispute the relationship between the parties. As regards second aspect regarding the rate of rent of the premises in question for this the appellant himself in his civil suit, the certified copy of the plaint of which is Ex.P29 has mentioned the rate of rent as Rs.1500/- per month. It is however, disputed by the respondent that the monthly rent was Rs.3500/- whereas at the same time there is no rent agreement between the parties nor the respondent has been able to prove any manner that the rate of rent between the parties was agreed to be Rs.3500/- per month. Moreover, it is evident from the record that no step has been undertaken by the appellant for deposing the admitted rent under the Rent Act and therefore, the finding in this regard by the learned Rent Controller against the appellant does not call for any interference. As regard the last aspect, that the respondent requires the premises in question for his bonafide requirement. For this reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondent on Hari Ram Vs. Madho Ram, 2002 HRR, 121 . In this case it was by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana that bonafide need of the landlord is to be seen on the date of application for ejectment. In the cited case the landlord had died during the C.R.No.4381 of 2011 4 pendency of litigation. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the personal necessity pleaded by the respondent was for himself and not for his legal representatives and therefore the case for personal need could have been said only for the said landlord and not for his other family members. In the case in hand, if the plea of the appellant is accepted that the landlord respondent had not sought the premises in question for the requirement of his other family members, in that case now the original landlord-respondent is no more, appellant would not be liable to be evicted from the premises in question at all. It is settled principle of law, that the rights of the parties were to be determined on the basis of the date of institution of proceedings. At the same time during the pendency of the proceedings, the changed circumstances can be looked into. It can however, not be that because of the changed circumstances, the death of original landlord, his legal representatives would not be allowed to pursue the said claim. In the case in hand, not only that the appellant has not come to the Court with a clean plea by denying his relationship with the respondent despite the fact that he had obtained relief from the Court on an earlier occasion with the same plea that he had been inducted as a tenant by the respondent in the premises in question. He has been a defaulter in the payment of rent. Thus, considering the entire discussion above, I find no reason to interfere in the findings arrived at by the learned Rent Controller.” Even before this Court, counsel for the petitioner has only argued that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the ejectment petition as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramrameshwari C.R.No.4381 of 2011 5 Devi and others v. Nirmala Devi and others, JT 2011 (8) SC 90, contending that framing of issues is a very important stage in the civil litigation and it is the bounden duty of the Court to give due care, caution, diligence and attention while framing issues in a case. On the basis of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has elaborated his argument by saying that no proper issues were framed by the Rent Controller with regard to the jurisdiction and in view of the aforesaid averments, it was incumbent upon the Rent Controller to decide first the question to frame an issue and decide the same at the first instance. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has refuted the averments made above and has stated that in view of the admission of the petitioner as made in the Civil Court and the fact that he has not come to the Court with clean hands by denying his relationship with the respondent despite the fact that he himself had obtained relief from the Court on an earlier occasion with the same plea that he had been inducted as a tenant by the respondent in the demised premises, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the other documents on record of this revision petition. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi (supra). However, the argument as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not arise in the facts of the present case. Admittedly, the petitioner filed a civil suit against the respondent-landlord claiming himself to be a tenant and thus he was estopped from denying the relationship of landlord C.R.No.4381 of 2011 6 and tenant between the parties. It was the petitioner who went to the Court by taking the plea of being a tenant. Thus, the petitioner having been taken benefit by claiming his status as tenant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate in the same breath. Thus, no fault can be found in the impugned order. Dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge October 14, 2011 rk