Civil Revision No. 1914 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 1914 of 2006 Date of Decision: 28.11.2008 Naresh Kumar …Petitioner Versus Baseshar Nath Trust (Registered) Ambala Cantt. and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for respondent No.1 None for respondents No.2 to 5. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by the tenant against the concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below that Baseshar Nath Trust, Ambala Cantt (hereinafter referred to as “the Trust”) is owner and landlord of the property and plea raised by the tenant that one Inder Parkash, Trustee, was landlord in his individual capacity has been negated. In the present case, since no rent was paid by the tenant on the ground that the Trust is not a landlord, his eviction has been ordered for denial of relationship of landlord and tenant. The Trust building had let out a room to Rameshwar Dass. Rameshwar Dass during the Civil Revision No. 1914 of 2006 2 proceedings before learned Rent Controller was represented by his legal representatives. The present rent petition was filed by Jagat Parkash who is said to be the President of the Trust, as he has been stated to be authorized vide resolution dated 28.3.1994 to file and prosecute the petition. It was stated that monthly rent was Rs.200/- besides taxes at the rate of 5% but the tenant had not paid the rent since 1.11.1994 to 30.4.1996. It was stated that he is in arrears of rent of Rs.3,600/- on account of rent and Rs.180/- on account of taxes. Written statement was filed to the eviction petition in which it was stated that neither the petitioner is a registered Trust nor Jagat Parkash is its President. Resolution authorizing Jagat Parkash to pursue the petition was also denied. It was stated that the petitioner has been tenant of one Inder Parkash who used to issue receipts after collecting the rent. Therefore, it was stated that since the petition has not been filed by Inder Parkash or his legal representatives, the same is bound to be dismissed and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and petitioner-Trust. Landlord examined Harkesh Kumar, Clerk, Cantonment Board, Ambala Cantt as PW.1 to state that in the records maintained by the Cantonment, the property is owned by the Trust. PW.2 Dalbir Singh, Clerk, Office of Registrar, Ambala, produced settlement deed Ex.P2 dated 12.3.1945. Jagat Parkash, President of the Trust himself appeared as PW.3. He proved various documents to say that property vests in the Trust and the Trust is the landlord. It was further stated that the rent was being collected by Inder Parkash in his capacity of settlor and Trustee Civil Revision No. 1914 of 2006 3 of the petitioner-Trust. Inder Parkash was brother of Jagat Parkash and Inder Parkash had died. After conclusion of evidence of the landlord, Naresh Kumar son of Rameshwar Dass appeared as RW.1. He relied upon two receipts Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 to state that they were issued by Inder Parkash in his individual capacity. Learned Rent Controller relied upon the deed of settlement Ex.P2 and other evidence and come to conclusion that the Trust was the owner and landlord. It further relied upon the cross-examination of the tenant that he was tenant in the premises from the last 20 years and he used to pay the rent. It further held that in a previous litigation also, a written statement Ex.P7 was filed. A similar plea was raised but rent was tendered in the Court under protest. It further held that since there is a documentary evidence and the petitioner-Trust is registered one, therefore, it was the owner and landlord of the premises. To assail this, Mr. Mittal contended before me that receipts Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 proved that the rent was being collected in individual capacity by Inder Parkash as there is no evidence that the rent collected by Inder Parkash was deposited in the bank account of the Trust and was accounted for in the account books of the Trust. This plea of Mr. Mittal cannot be accepted. The Trust was registered in 1945. Ex.P2 deed of settlement show that Inder Parkash along with Jagat Parkash was a Trustee. The premises has been led out by the Trust. If a Trustee perform any act on behalf of the Trust, the same cannot be construed as an act in the individual capacity. Inder Parkash was none else but brother of Jagat Parkash who had pursued the petition on the basis of Civil Revision No. 1914 of 2006 4 Trust Deed. Act of one Trustee bind the other Trustee. Therefore, it was too naïve for the tenant to doubt the credentials of the landlord-Trust. Mr. Mittal has relied upon Ravi Ahuja v. Shri Ram Leela Committee, Morinda (2005-1) 139 The Punjab Law Reporter634 to say that time was granted to the tenant to pay the arrears of rent but in this case no time has been granted. Therefore, an opportunity be afforded to the tenant, and time be granted to deposit rent. Mr. Mittal also relied upon another judgment Rajinder Lal v. Gopal Krishan 2006 (1) Rent Control Reporter 438 to state that an opportunity ought to be given to the tenant. These are the cases where the rate of rent was disputed not the relationship of landlord and tenant. Therefore, they are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant has further relied upon Sant Lal v. Prem Chandel (Smt.) 1996(1) Rent Control Reporter 322 to contend that owner and landlord can be different and, therefore, owner cannot be assumed to be landlord. He further relied upon K.D.Dewan v. Harbhajan S. Parihar 2002(1) Rent Control Reporter 214 that a person need not necessarily be owner and there can be another person as landlord. Therefore, it has been stated that Inder Parkash was the landlord and the Trust was not a landlord. As held earlier, Inder Parkash was acting on behalf of the Trust being a Trustee, therefore, individual capacity of the landlord cannot be vested upon him. The concurrent finding of fact to this extent after appreciating the evidence cannot be disturbed in the revisional jurisdiction because as the counsel say that different view is possible. The view formulated by the two Courts below is just and is not perverse. Civil Revision No. 1914 of 2006 5 Therefore, no interference is warranted. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that adequate time be granted to the petitioner to make alternative arrangement. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, two months time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 28, 2008 “DK”