Guru Nanak Trading Corporation vs Dhanna Singh and Another

Ashok Bhan, J.—Present revision filed on behalf of the tenant arises out of the following facts :-

Dhanna Singh (deceased) landlord now represented by his legal representatives filed an application for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) from the disputed workshop including the machinery fitted therein situated on the Grand Trunk Road Jalandhar. Rent of the premises in dispute including the machinery was agreed at the rate of Rs. 325/- per month excluding the electricity charges. Ejectment was sought on the ground that rent from May 1977 till the filing of the ejectment application in the year 1979 was not paid. Besides, this, the other ground was that respondent No. 1 had sublet a portion of the premises to one Mohinder Singh without the written consent of the landlord; that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the building by making unauthorised construction.

Written statement was filed by the tenant who was respondent No. 1 before the trial Court as well as respondent No. 2 separately. In the written statement it was stated that the Central Govt. was the owner of the property and the tenant had been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,540/- as damage charges for use and occupation of the property in dispute at the rate of Rs. 2/- per marla for the period from 1.12.1968 to 30.9.1978 vide letter dated 12.9.1979 issued by Tesildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Jalandhar. This amount was to be deposited by the tenant in six equal instalments in accordance with the said demand, tenant paid Rs. 600/- vide receipt No. 92 dated 25.9.1978. Under these circumstances, it was contended that the ejectment petition was not maintainable at the instance of the landlord. The next point taken was that initially the disputed premises were taken on rent from the landlord but in fact there were two separate tenancies one in respect of the building on the land and other regarding the machinery fitted thereon. Earlier plea taken was that the tenant was not in arrears of rent as he had already paid Rs. 600/- to the Rehabilitation Department reference to which has already been given in the earlier part of this judgment. Averments of subletting of a part of the premises besides materially impairing the value and utility of the demised premises were also denied.

Respondent No. 2 Mohinder Singh on the other hand contended that he had no concern with the tenant and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and tenant petitioner. He however, admitted that he was in possession of his portion of the premises measuring 10 marlas since the year 1965 and had raised his own construction for the purposes of his requirements.

Replication to the written statement was filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1) Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged in preliminary objection No. 1 of the written statement ? OPR.

2) Whether there are two separate tenancies in respect of the premises in dispute and the machinery ? OPR.

3) Whether respondent No. 1 is entitled to any notice ? OPR.

4) If issue No. 3 is proved, whether any notice has been served upon respondent No. 1 ? If so, its effect ? OPR.

5) Whether the respondent has ceased to be a tenant under the petitioner? OPR.

6) Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment on the grounds mentioned in para No. 2 of the application ? OPA.

7) Relief.

Rent Controller after a perusal of the evidence led by the parties decided issue No. 1 against the tenant. Under issue No. 2, it was held that Rs. 125/- per month was the rent for the site including electric connection and Rs. 200/- per month for the machinery and other equipments installed therein holding that there were two separate tenancies. Issues No. 3 and 5 were decided against the tenant. Issue No. 6 was decided against the landlord holding that he had failed to prove that the tenant was in arrears of rent or that he had sublet the premises in dispute to respondent No. 2. Aggrieved against the order of the Rent Controller, landlord filed an appeal which was allowed by the first appellate Court. Findings on issue No. 6 alone were challenged. Lower appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court on issue No. 6 and held that the tenant was in arrears of rent and as such he was liable to be evicted on the ground of nor-payment of rent since May 1977.

This case was disposed of finally on May 17, 1983 by his Court against which SLP was filed which was accepted by the apex Court and the case was remitted back to this Court for re-decision. The reason for acceptance of the SLP in the Supreme Court of India was that the landlord-respondent had died during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court and the revision petition was disposed of without impleading the legal representatives of the landlord-respondent. Thereafter, representatives of the landlord-respondent were impleaded who are represented by counsel before me.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and find no merit in this revision petition. Admittedly relationship of landlord and tenant existed as the premises were taken on rent by the tenant from the landlord; further fact admitted by the tenant and his counsel before the courts below was that he had not paid any amount to the landlord but instead has made certain payment to the Rehabilitation Department. Since the tenant had taken the premises in dispute from the landlord, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties existed and, therefore, the tenant was liable to pay the rent to the landlord which he failed to pay when it became due or tender the same before the Court after the filing of the petition. Findings of first appellate Court on issue No. 6 are affirmed.

For the reasons recorded above, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the first appellate Court and as such the present revision petition is dismissed. No costs.