CR No.7199 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7199 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 23.11.2011 Chanan Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Madhu Bala ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Ms. Puja Chopra , Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned orders of eviction passed against him by the Authorities below. Brief facts emerging from the impugned orders are that the petitioner took the demised shop from one Kedar Nath son of Ghastia Ram on a monthly rent of ` 200/- vide rent note dated 26.2.1991. Aforesaid Kedar Nath died on 13.10.1991 and his wife Ganga Devi died on 24.5.2001. It was further averred that the son and daughter-in-law of said Kedar Nath had predeceased him and the property in dispute was inherited by one Meenakshi Goyal who sold the demised shop and other property to the respondent vide registered sale deed dated 11.7.2005. The respondent sought eviction of the petitioner on the following grounds: (i) That the petitioner has failed to pay the rent @ ` 200/- per month w.e.f. 1.2.2003 onwards; and (ii) That the petitioner has ceased to occupy the demised shop for continuous period of more than four months CR No.7199 of 2011(O&M) 2 immediately prior to the filing of the present petition without any reasonable cause. Upon notice, the petitioner admitted that he was a tenant in the demised shop on a monthly rent of ` 200/-. It was also admitted that the demised shop was let out to him by Kedar Nath who has expired. The factum of inheritance of the demised shop in favour of Meenakshi Goyal was denied for want of knowledge. The petitioner further denied that the respondent had purchased the demised shop vide registered sale deed as alleged. It was further averred that the respondent and Meenakshi Goyal might have committed fraud by concealing the real facts. It was further averred that the respondent has no right to collect the rent prior to the date of execution of sale deed. He further denied that he had ceased to occupy the demised shop for continuously more than four months prior to filing of the present petition without any reasonable cause. It was also averred that the business of flour mill was not sufficient for him and thus, he also started the business of draftsman. Dismissal of the petition was prayed. On the first date of hearing, the Rent Controller, provisionally assessed the arrears of rent from 5.7.2005 @ ` 200/- per month with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum and costs of ` 300/- vide order dated 8.3.2007. Pursuant to such order, the respondent tendered arrears of rent from 5.7.2005 to 5.4.2007 @ ` 200/- per month along with interest and costs as assessed by the Court. The tender was accepted by the respondent under protest. From the respective pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent and rent tendered by the respondent is short and invalid? OPP 2. Whether the respondent to occupy the demised CR No.7199 of 2011(O&M) 3 premises for a continuous period of more than four months immediately after preceding the filing of petition? OPP 3. Relief.” After considering the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Rent Controller found that there exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but non-suited the respondent-landlord on the ground of non-payment of rent. However, under issue No.2, it was held that the respondent-landlord had successfully proved that the petitioner had ceased to occupy the demised shop continuously for more than four months prior to filing of petition without any reasonable cause and the petitioner was liable to be evicted on the said ground. Thus, eviction of the petitioner was allowed on the ground stated above. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid eviction order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Though, the respondent-landlord did not challenge the findings of the Rent Controller on issue No.1 but counsel for the petitioner assailed the order of eviction on the ground that the respondent-landlord has failed to prove that the demised premises were the part of the sale deed dated 5.7.2005 vide which the respondent claims to have become owner and landlord of the demised shop. The findings of the Rent Controller on issue No.2 were also challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority while dismissing his appeal observed as under:- “I have carefully gone through pleadings of the parties, evidence led by the parties in the learned trial Court and have also perused the impugned judgment. The perusal of the same goes to show that although formally no doubt regarding the relationship of landlord and CR No.7199 of 2011(O&M) 4 tenant was found by the trial Court but the learned Rent Controller has thrashed this issue at the very outset. The trial court has mentioned in para No.7 of the impugned judgment. The basic arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this court is also that by virtue of the sale deed in favour of the present respondent, the shop in dispute was not sold and as such she has not become the owner of the shop in dispute. Hence there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. He has tried to pick up certain lines of cross examination of the present appellant to substantiate his version but while going through the cross examination of present respondent it became crystal clear that the present shop is a part and parcel of the building which has been purchased by the respondent and as such she has become landlord for all the intended purposes as discussed by Rent Controller in the judgment. His cross examination is very relevant when he deposes that he has preferred complaints against the petitioner for having purchased the disputed property alongwith building, ground floor and first floor. He deposed that he has made various complainants in this behalf to different various authorities as well as SDM, Tehsildar and D.C. Patiala that the shop in dispute was not purchased by the present respondent. There was no occasion for the present appellant to move such applications. The matter became more clear when he deposes that he is a tenant in the shop in dispute under petitioner. So in these circumstances learned Rent Controller have rightly held that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx The perusal of the evidence further goes to show that in the cross examination of the appellant he has admitted that he is working as private draftsman in the office of Municipal Corporation Patiala for the last 20 years. He has further admitted that the shop no.4 has CR No.7199 of 2011(O&M) 5 been allotted to him in the complex of the office of Municipal Corporation Patiala and prior to that he was working as draftsman in Dharmpura Bazar Patiala adjoining to office of Municipal Corporation Patiala. He has also admitted that he appears as witness in different cases in the courts at Patiala. So this admission on the part of the appellant is sufficient enough to show that he is no more in the job of a running Flour mill rather he has accepted the work of draftsman as full time work and have also got a licence regarding the same from Municipal Corporation Patiala and have also been allotted a space for office in the complex of Municipal Corporation Patiala. His further cross examination goes to show that his brother Mohan Singh is now running atta chaki and he also admitted that Mohan Sigh is not a tenant in the shop. First of all there is no evidence as to whether any atta chaki was running in the premises and some customers should have come forwarded to depose that they got their wheat grinded on the atta chaki installed in the shop. He would have maintained some record as is oftenly kept in the flour Mill in which the names of the customers who bring their grains for grinding are entered. No such record have been placed on the file. So after considering all these things learned Rent Controller has rightly came to the conclusion that the present appellant has ceased to occupy the shop and is working as a full time draftsman. No illegality can be found in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. No other arguments was advanced by ld counsel for the appellant. The case law produced by the appellant does not help him because despite of denial of the fact by the appellant in his pleadings that the property in dispute have been purchased, it stood proved so when the respondent himself admitted in his cross examination that the property in dispute is a part of building which has been purchased by the respondent CR No.7199 of 2011(O&M) 6 of the present case and he candidly admitted that he is a tenant in the shop in dispute under the present respondent. In view of the clear admission all these citations quoted by the ld. Counsel for the appellant does not help to prove his case.” Still aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition before this Court challenging the impugned order/judgment of the Authorities below. Counsel for the tenant-petitioner has raised only one ground before this Court that the petitioner has denied the relationship of the landlord and tenant and in these circumstances, even if the eviction has not been ordered on the ground of non-payment of rent, this petition is liable to succeed on the ground that the Appellate Authority could not have gone into any other finding without first dealing with the said issue. From the perusal of the judgment of the Appellate Authority, this Court finds that the Appellate Authority has given a finding that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner is a tenant under Kedar Nath, the original landlord. Except denying the sale deed in favour of the respondent by Meenakshi Goyal, the petitioner has not led any evidence in support of his case that the respondent is not the owner/landlord of the demised premises. The petitioner has placed on record the sale deed dated 11.7.2005 executed in his favour to claim ownership/landlordship of the demised premises. This evidence of the respondent has gone unrebutted. Not only this, before this Court also, in support of the argument raised, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to refer to any material evidence on record. It is specifically stated that counsel for the petitioner has not raised any argument against the findings of both the Authorities below on CR No.7199 of 2011(O&M) 7 the ground of ceasation to occupy the demised premises. No other point has been urged. Dismissed. November 23, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE