Civil Revision No. 212 of 2010 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 212 of 2010 Date of decision : 25.2.2010 Chaman Lal Jindal ....Petitioner Versus Dev Samaj Society ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner is in revision against the concurrent finding, recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority ordering the ejectment of the impleaded tenant from the tenanted premises. The premise of ordered eviction action is non-payment of rent by the impleaded tenant. The respondent-landlord applied for the ejectment of tenant Chaman Lal Jindal, who is a tenant under the former on shop No.5, on a precise averment that the latter had not paid rent since August, 1993. The tenant aforementioned did not enter appearance on his behalf. The written statement at the trial was filed by the petitioner herein i.e. Sugan Chand who, besides challenging the locus standi of the signatory to the petition to file it, averred that rent for due period had been deposited in the Court of learned Rent Controller from time to time. The petitioner herein is, otherwise a Civil Revision No. 212 of 2010 -2- *** real brother of tenant Chaman Lal Jindal and he is also in possession of a shop adjacent to the tenanted premises. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that a presumption of relationship of the landlord/tenant between the respondent and the petitioner herein had to be compulsively drawn in view of the fact that a part of the arrears of rent came to be deposited by the petitioner herein in terms of provisions of Section 6-A of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that amount was withdrawn by the respondent-landlord. In that very context, it was argued that arrears of rent for another period of time were tendered in the Court of the learned Rent Controller and accepted by the respondent-landlord. The acceptance of the rent deposited by the petitioner herein from time to time, the argument proceeded, amount to the acceptance of relationship of the respondent-landlord and tenant between the parties herein. It was also argued that it was for the respondent-landlord to explain how exactly the petitioner herein came to enter the tenanted premises. In the context of that averment, the attention of this Court was invited towards that part of the statement made by Sudarshan Kumar, authorised signatory of the petition, wherein he had conceded that he had no idea about how the petitioner herein came into occupation of the tenanted premises. In that very context, reliance was placed upon the statement made by Sudarshan Kumar to the effect that the respondent-landlord did not file any plea for ejectment against the Civil Revision No. 212 of 2010 -3- *** impleaded tenant on an averment of subletting. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent, resisted the pleas aforementioned and argued that the amount of rent tendered or deposited by the petitioner herein was never accepted by the respondent-landlord unconditionally and it was always accepted under protest. It was also argued that the mere inability on the part of Sudarshan Kumar to indicate how exactly the petitioner herein came in to occupation of the tenanted premises is not sufficient to record a finding of tenancy in favour of the petitioner herein qua tenanted premises. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is denuded of merit. The reasons therefor are as under:- By the very nature of things, a deposit in terms of the provisions of Section 6-A of the Act would be an exparte affair. Though the deposit of amount by the petitioner herein in terms of that provisions of law came to be notified to the respondent-landlord and the amount deposited was withdrawn, it requires pertinent notice that the acceptance of deposited amount was not unconditional. The same applies to the tender made on behalf of the petitioner herein at different points of time. Each time, the acceptance of amount was under protest. It cannot be wished away that the respondent-landlord was, in any case, entitled to receive rent. It being common ground that the petitioner herein is none else or other than the real brother of tenant Chaman Lal Jindal, there is nothing unnatural on the part of the respondent-landlord in having Civil Revision No. 212 of 2010 -4- *** accepted the amount deposited by the petitioner herein. The mere acceptance of the amount deposited by the petitioner herein cannot be taken into account to hold that the acceptance amounted to creation of a relationship of the landlord-tenant between the presently representing parties. Further, even if the respondent- landlord had not filed a plea for the eviction of Chaman Lal Jindal from the tenanted premises on an averment of subletting in favour of petitioner herein, not much can be read into it. The mere, refrain on the part of the respondent in the relevant behalf cannot be taken to be adequate enough to draw an inference about existence of relationship of the respondent-landlord and tenant between the parties before this Court. It is evident from a perusal of the judgment rendered by the learned Appellate Authority that it recorded valid and acceptable reasoning in support of the finding. The following relevant observations, in matter of appreciation of evidence, noticed in the course of paras 15,16,17 and 18 are extracted hereunder for facility of reference:- “15. Landlord had specifically pleaded in para-2 of petition that petitioner is landlord and respondent is tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.700/- per month and in para 3, it was pleaded that premises were left out in November 1982. In the written statement filed, contents of those paras were not denied and as a consequence, a fact not specifically denied would be deemed to have Civil Revision No. 212 of 2010 -5- *** been admitted. The petition was filed against Chaman Lal Jindal and admission of relationship in paras 2 and 3 of the written statement certainly amounts to relationship of landlord Dev Samaj Society and tenant Chaman Lal Jindal. Even otherwise, tenant has been defined under Section 2(h) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) 1973 and is reproduced below:- “2. Definitions ---- In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, --- (a) XXXXX (b) XXXXX (c) XXXXX (d) XXXXX (e) XXXXX (f) XXXXX (g) XXXXX (h) “tenant” means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy and in the event of such person's death, such of his heirs as are mentioned in the Schedule appended to this Act and who were ordinarily residing with him at the time of his death, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building or rental land by Civil Revision No. 212 of 2010 -6- *** its tenant, except with the written consent of the landlord, or person to whom the collection of rent or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter- house or of rents for shops has been framed out, or leased by a municipal town or notified area committee.” 16. The “tenant” has been defined to be “any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable”. It does not include a person paying rent as third person on behalf of tenant so as to entitle him to claim right of tenancy. Mere deposit of rent or tender of rent would not create relationship of landlord and tenant. Parties must be ad-idem to each other to claim relationship. Merely, because Shugan Chand, who happens to be a tenant of adjoining shop, happens to file petition under Section 6-A of the Rent Act and depositing rent at the back of landlord and without notice to him could not claim any benefit of being a tenant of the premises in question or so as to claim benefit of creation of tenancy by merely depositing rent in the Court at the back of landlord. The deposit of rent by Shugan Chand was not on behalf of tenant Chaman Lal Jindal so as to absolve the respondent of his liability of non-payment of rent. The deposit of rent Civil Revision No. 212 of 2010 -7- *** by Shugan Chand in his own name certainly could not create tenancy in his favour. 17. Suraj Bhan vs. Som Parkash's case (supra), though relied upon by appellant but does not favour Shugan Chand as in the said judgment it was held that though tender can be made by any person on behalf of tenant but deposit has to be on behalf of tenant and deposit could not be taken to be in his own capacity. Dhani Ram and others Vs. Madan Lal and another's case (supra) is on the point of conduct of landlord claiming rent at higher rate, rent found below by court, has no applicability as the rent in question was not deposited by or on behalf of actual tenant. Ashok Kumar & Anr. vs. Moti Ram & Ors.' case (supra) though relied upon by Shugan Chand but is against him. In this authority, it was held that mere payment of rent does not create tenancy though further holding that when receipts are executed and accepted by owner, onus is upon him to explain why rent was accepted. Ram Chander Vs. Vinod Kumar and another's case (supra) is on the point holding that no specific denial of fact in written statement cannot be said be an admission Civil Revision No. 212 of 2010 -8- *** and in the absence of any defence and specific denial, plaintiff has to substantiate his case for obtaining decree in his favour on the basis of his pleadings and documents. This authority has again no applicability as in the case in hand, there is specific admission of relationship. 18. A contention was also raised that Sudershan Kumar when appeared as PW1 admitted in cross examination that there were two shops on rent with Shugan Chand, which are on the first floor while the shop in question is on the ground floor. He further admitted that Chaman Lal had executed a rent note with respect to the shop in question, which was scribed by Subodh Chand, Deed Writer and could be placed on file. Though the document has been placed on file land is only marked showing creation of tenancy between Dev Samaj Society and Chaman Lal Jindal. On being further cross-examined that rent was deposited by Shugan Chand, witness expressed ignorance submitting that accounts are maintained by office and further that the rent when tendered was accepted under protest. He further states that case was filed against Chaman Lal. Statement of Vijay Kumar was referred to contend that amounts were being deposited by Shugan Chand pursuance to petition under Section 6-A of the Rent Act. There is no dispute about the deposit but Civil Revision No. 212 of 2010 -9- *** again that rent was not deposited by tenant himself nor on his behalf. Shugan Chand has not even entered the witness – box to claim himself to be owner or to contend that he was either attorney of Chaman Lal or that he was putting appearance and defending the case on behalf of Chaman Lal Jindal. So much so, he has not stepped into the witness – box to depose that he had not deposited the rent himself in his capacity.” In the light of foregoing discussion, it is apparent that the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also learned Appellate Authority cannot be faulted on any valid score. The petition is held without any force and is ordered to be dismissed. The tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. In case of default in compliance, the respondent- landlord shall be entitled to obtain possession through the Court. February 23, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE