Chan Parkash vs Tara Singh and another

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The point in issue in revision here is-whether there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties so as to render the respondent-Tara Singh liable thereby to ejectment at the instance of the petitioner Chan Parkash under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

The property, in respect of which the parties are litigating is house-4940 in Mohalla Palledaran, Saddar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. This was an evacuee property which had been allotted by the Custodian to Tara Singh on payment of Rs. 4/- per month. It stands established from the material on record that vide sanad exhibit P/1, this property stands duly conveyed in favour of the petitioner Chan Parkash since October, 1983. Chan Parkash is thus the owner while Tara Singh has continued in possession ever since.

Both the rent controller as also the appellate authority have returned concurrent findings to the effect that the petitioner Chan Parkash bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The correctness of this finding has not been questioned in revision. While the rent controller ordered the ejectment of Tara Singh, on this ground, namely for personal necessity, the appellate authority denied in holding that Tara Singh being an allottee under the Custodian, the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and therefore, Tara Singh could not be ejected under the provisions of the Act. Relied upon in this behalf being the judgment of D.K. Mahajan, J. in Gurcharan Singh v. Devki Nandan and another (1970) 72 P.L.R. 651, where it was observed. "There is no dispute that the possession of an allottee is merely that of a licencee and he does not enjoy any rights over and above those that are enjoyed by a mere licencee." This was latter followed by two other authorities which were also noticed by the appellate authority, namely, Harnam Singh and another v. Smt. Kaushalya Devi and another 1980 (2) R.C.R. 159 and Smt. Shankuntla of Jagadhri v. B.D. Bansal 1984 H.R.R. 14.

The view that an allottee was a mere licencee and not a tenant can no longer stand in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Gobind Ram v. Takhat Mal Kanungo and another (1962) 64 P.L.R. 969, where the argument that Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, created a special jurisdiction for persons mentioned therein, namely; allotters of evacuee property lawfully in possession thereof, by deeming them to be tenants, was repelled with the observation, "The mere fact that some special protection against eviction was provided in respect of certain tenants by Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, does not in any sense, imply that such tenants were not within the jurisdiction of the already existing Tribunals." It was further observed." "When Parliament said emphatically, such persons in lawful occupation of transferred property were to be deemed tenants, the intent on was that they would be subject to the same jurisdiction as other tenants occupying premises in urban areas."

A similar view was expressed in a later judgment by Gurdev Singh, J. in Kesar Dass and others v. Jaisa Ram and others (1967) 69 P.L.R. 499, where it was held, "that an allottee or a licencee under the Custodian by virtue of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act became a tenant under the purchaser of the evacuee property. He could not be dispossessed or evicted because of the protection granted to him u/s 29 of the said Act and the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. His position is that of a statutory tenant. It is pertinent to note that neither the judgment of the Division Beach in Gobind Ram''s case (supra), nor that of Gurdev Singh, J. in Kesar Dass''s case (supra) was brought to the notice of the Hon''ble Judges who decided the three cases relied upon and followed by the appellate authority, namely; Gurcharan Singh v. Devki Nandan and others (1970) 72 P.L.R. 651, Harnam Singh and another v. Smt. Kaushalya Devi and another 1980 (2) R.C.R. 159 and Smt. Shakuntla of Jagadhri v. B.D. Bansal 1984 H.R.R. 14.

Reference here must also be made to the judgment of S.S. Kang, J. in Faqir Singh v. Kasturi Lal 1981 R.C.R. 537, where, after noticing all the authorities wherein before mentioned it was held that allottees of evacuee property, on the cancellation of their allotment became tenants, by operation of law, of the transferees of such evacuee property and could, therefore, be ejected under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

Faced with this situation, counsel for the respondent sought to contend that Tara Singh must be deemed to be an unauthorised occupant as he had not been paying rent for the premises to Chan Parkash nor had he paid arrears of rent within the period of 60 days as mentioned in Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and was thus not a tenant under Chan Parkash. It will be seen that it is for the first time in revision here that such a plea has been raised and it cannot therefore, be countenanced at this late stage, to deny relief to the petitioner merely on any such ground.

There can thus be no escape from the conclusion that Tara Singh was a tenant under the petitioner Chan Parkash and liable as such to ejectment under the Act. The order of the appellate authority is accordingly hereby set aside and Tara Singh is ordered to be ejected forthwith from the premises in question. This revision petition is thus accepted with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 300/-.