RSA No.2554 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2554 of 2007 Date of Decision: 16.02.2010. Smt. Shobhya Rani and others .……Appellants Versus Moti Ram and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the respondents. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is second appeal by legal representatives of the original plaintiff Brij Mohan Nanda since deceased, having remained only partly successful in both the Courts below. Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff illegally and forcibly from the suit property being a shop situated in Sohna, in which the plaintiff is tenant under the defendants, and from disconnecting electricity and water connections from the suit premises. The plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff is tenant in the disputed shop under the defendants on monthly rent of Rs.100/- for 7-8 years before the filing of the suit (filed on 15.03.1996) for running business of Soda Water Works. Defendants were adamant to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly and illegally from the suit property. The defendants inter alia pleaded that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also RSA No.2554 of 2007 -2- alleged that the suit property is not a shop, but is a godown. It was initially let out to the plaintiff. Its monthly rent was Rs.500/- in the year 1976. Plaintiff failed to pay rent for 2 ½ years and, therefore, gave vacant possession of the suit property to the defendants in the year 1984. However, again the property was leased out to the plaintiff for manufacturing soda water for one season of 9 months from February 1988 to October 1988 for consolidated amount of Rs.8000/-. The process continued each year, but lease money was raised to Rs.9000/-. However, on 31.10.1995, the plaintiff failed to deliver back the possession of the suit property to the defendants and, therefore, possession of the plaintiff is unlawful and without any authority. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2006 held that possession over the suit property stands admitted, but the plaintiff has failed to establish that he is occupying the suit property as tenant. Consequently, suit was decreed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff illegally and forcibly from the disputed shop and from disconnecting electricity and water connections, except in due course of law. First appeal preferred by legal representatives of the plaintiff and also first appeal preferred by defendants have been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.2007, upholding the aforesaid finding of the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by legal representatives of the plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused RSA No.2554 of 2007 -3- the case file. The following substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal:- “ Whether the finding of the Courts below that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is occupying the suit property as tenant is illegal and perverse and, therefore, not sustainable in law.” It is not disputed even by counsel for the respondents that the suit property is situated in Municipal Town of Sohna and, therefore, provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short, Haryana Rent Act) are applicable to the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that even after the lease period expired in October 1995 as pleaded by the defendants, even then in view of protection provided to the tenant- plaintiff by the provisions of the Haryana Rent Act, possession of the appellants over the suit property is as tenants and not as trespassers. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his contention has relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Om Wati Gaur and others versus Jitendra Kumar and others, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 229 and a judgment of this Court in the case of Manohan Nath etc. versus Smt. Kesra Devi etc., 1980 CLJ (Civil) 100. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent contended that after expiry of lease period in October 1995, possession of the plaintiff over the suit property became unlawful and he did not continue to be tenant therein. RSA No.2554 of 2007 -4- I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Admittedly, provisions of the Haryana Rent Act are applicable to the suit property. Consequently, even after expiry of lease period, possession of the plaintiff-tenant did not become unlawful over the demised property and he continued to hold the property as tenant, being protected under the provisions of the Haryana Rent Act. This is the only purpose of providing protection to the tenant by the provisions of the Haryana Rent Act that even after expiry of tenancy period, the possession of the tenant would not become unlawful. The tenant would be entitled to continue in possession of the tenancy premises unless ordered to be evicted therefrom in accordance with the provisions of the Haryana Rent Act. In the case of Manmohan Nath (supra), definition of tenant as given in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act was interpreted and it was held that a tenant or person continuing in possession even after termination of tenancy would be covered by the definition of ‘tenant’. Similarly in the case of Om Wati (supra), it was held that even if the tenancy was terminated before coming into force of the corresponding Rent Protection Act, legal heirs of the original tenant, who were residing with the tenant at the time of death, can be treated as 'tenant'. Section 2 (h) of the Haryana Rent Act defines ‘tenant’. It inter alia states that the tenant also includes a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy and in the event of such person's death, such of his heirs as are mentioned in the Schedule appended to the Haryana Rent Act, who were ordinarily residing with him at the time of his death. In the instant case, the plaintiff was admittedly inducted as tenant. Consequently, even after termination of tenancy, the plaintiff RSA No.2554 of 2007 -5- continued to occupy the suit property as tenant as is manifest from clear, plain and unambiguous language used in the definition of ‘tenant’ in Section 2 (h) of the Haryana Rent Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that the plaintiff continued to be tenant over the suit property even after expiry of tenancy period and consequently, possession of the appellants over the suit property is not unlawful, but is as tenants. Finding of the Courts below to the contrary is patently perverse and illegal and not sustainable in law because relevant provisions of the Haryana Rent Act were not taken into consideration by the Courts below. Accordingly, answer to the substantial question of law framed hereinabove is in the affirmative i.e in favour of the appellants. As a necessary consequences of the aforesaid discussion, the instant second appeal is allowed and it is held that possession of the plaintiff (now representated by legal representatives i.e appellants) over the suit property continues to be as tenant in view of provisions of the Haryan0 .... a Rent Act and finding of the Courts below to the contrary is set aside. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 16.02.2010. A. Kaundal