Amar Chand vs Kishan Chand and Another

Sarojnei Saksena, J.—Tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petitioner against Rent Controller''s order dated January 18, 1993, and the Appellate Authority''s order dated August 5, 1985, whereby landlord''s rent petition was allowed and his appeal was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that Kishan Chand is Secretary and Shiv Narain is president of Khandan Tannu Mall, Jagraon. This Khandan Tannu Mall is the owner of the shop situate in Agwar Landhai Adda Raikot Jagraon. The petitioner is a tenant therein at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. The landlords contention is that the tenant-petitioner has not paid rent since January 12, 1970, and the demised premises when it was leased out was wooden khokha and platform measuring 20'' x 20'', but the tenant has dismantled these wooden Khokhas and has constructed Pucca shops in its place without permission of the landlords and thus has caused material impairment to the tenement. On these counts, the landlords claimed petitioner''s ejectment.

The tenant-petitioner contended that Kishan Chand and Shiv Narain are not entitled to file this rent petition. Hence the petition is not maintainable. He also denied relationship of landlord and tenant. All other allegations were also not countenanced by him. According to him, he constructed these Pucca shops with the permission of the then landlord and hence on these counts he cannot be evicted. He tendered rent in the Court from October 1991 to March 1992.

The Rent Controller recorded the evidence of the parties and arrived at a finding that the petitioners being Secretary and President of Khandan Tannu Mall, Jagraon, are competent to file this rent petition as by a resolution Exhibit A-2 they have been authorised to file this petition. The property is owned by Khandan Tannu Mall, Jagraon and being its Secretary and President they are authorised to file this petition. The Rent Controller also held that the tenant has admitted on oath, that he has not paid rent since 1970, though in the Court he deposited rent only from October 1991 to March 1992. Thus, he is defaulter in payment of arrears of rent. The tenant also admitted on oath that he was inducted in the demised premises on January 12, 1963, under a written rent note, which was also produced before the Rent Controller. He also admitted that he constructed two Pucca shops thereon in the year 1961 after taking permission from the then landlord Jagan Nath son of Waliati Ram, whom he did not examine. Thus, the Rent Controller found that he has constructed these shops in place of wooden cabins without obtaining the permission of the landlord, because the premises was leased out to him on January 12, 1963, and not in 1961, as the tenant has stated. Thus, on both the counts the petition was allowed and ejectment order was passed.

The Appellate Authority also affirmed these findings and dismissed the tenant-petitioner''s appeal.

The petitioner''s learned counsel fervently argued that Kishan Chand and Shiv Narain have no authority to file the rent petition on behalf of Khandan Tannu Mal, which is a Trust. Thus, on this count the petition was not maintainable. The tenant raised such an objection in the written statement, but no such issue was framed by the Rent Controller. Hence, the impugned order suffer from this infirmity and illegality. He also argued that the tenant has deposited the rental arrears and he has also proved that he constructed these shops after obtaining permission from the then landlord Jagan Nath. According to him, the Courts below have fallen into an error in not holding the tenant''s evidence reliable.

In my considered view, the Courts below have not fallen into any error so far as the maintainability of the petition is concerned, the landlords have proved the resolution Exhibit A-2 which authorised them to file this rent petition on behalf of Khandan Tannu Mall, Jagraon. They have not filed this petition in their individual capacity. This petition is filed on behalf of Khandan Tannu Mall through them as Secretary and President. Hence on this count it cannot be said that the rent petition is not maintainable.

So far as the non-framing of the issue with regard to the said allegation is concerned, even though no issue was framed, it has not affected the merits of the case, because both the parties were alive to their pleadings and had adduced evidence thereon. Secondly, it is not necessary for the Rent Controller to frame issues as all the provisions of the CPC cannot be invoked. As per decision of this Court in Ram Dutt Gupta v. Financial Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh (1976)78 P.L.R. 791 while deciding such a petition the Rent Controller is persona designata and not a Civil Court.

So far as the grounds of ejectment are concerned, the tenant himself admitted on oath that he has not paid rent since 1970 and he deposited rent in the Court only from October 1, 1991, to March 31, 1992. Thus, obviously he is a defaulter so far as the payment of rental arrears is concerned. The tenant has admitted that in 1961, he constructed the said shops on the wooden cabins after obtaining permission from the then landlord Jagan Nath. He has not examined Jagan Nath. He has not even said that Jagan Nath is no more available for examination. Admittedly, this demised premises was leased out to the tenant-petitioner vide rent note Exhibit A-5 dated January 12, 1963. Thus, the tenant''s statement was rightly held unreliable that with the permission of the then landlord he constructed these shops in 1961.

This is a revision petition. There is no perversity in the findings of the Courts below. Hence, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned orders.

Finding the revision petition meritless, it is hereby dismissed. The tenant is granted two months'' time to vacate the demised premises.