Harbans Singh vs Smt. Baljit Kaur and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This is tenant''s revision directed against the orders of the Authorities below whereby he has been ordered to be ejected on the ground of personal necessity of the landlords.

Vide two sale-deeds dated 23.9.1983 and 26.91983 duly registered with the Sub Registrar the House in dispute was purchased in equal shares by Smt. Baljit Kaur wife of Amarjit Singh son of Jagat Ram and by Jagat Ram, i.e. father-in-law of Smt. Baljit Kaur. Ejectment of the tenant was sought on the grounds; (i) non payment of rent w.e.f. 23.9.1983; (ii) requirement of premises for personal use and occupation of landlords; and (iii) sub letting of the premises by the tenant to one Dhan Singh, his brother. Tenant on the first date of hearing tendered the entire arrears of rent and also the interest and Costs. In his written statement, tenant took up the plea that the premises are not required by the landlords for their use and occupation and the application for ejectment has been filed by them in collusion with Amarjit Singh, husband of Baljit Kaur and Pritpal Singh, original owner of the property. The tenant also denied the allegation of sub-letting. It was also averred that the sale in favour of the landlords is Sham and paper transaction and has been effected in order to seek ejectment of the tenant.

The Rent Controller on the basis of evidence brought on record gave the finding that there are no arrears of rent as a valid tender of rent was made by the tenant on the first date of hearing. The ground of sub-letting was rejected, but the ejectment of the tenant was ordered on the ground that the premises are required by the landlords for their own use and occupation. In appeal, order of the Rent Controller has been affirmed, and now the tenant has come in present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised only one contention, i.e. the sale of the house in dispute in favour of the landlords is a Sham and paper transaction and has been affected in order to eject the tenant. Counsel contended that previous to the present petition, Pritpal Singh, original owner had filed an application for ejectment. That application was dismissed by the Court of Shri N.D. Bhatara, Rent Controller, Ludhiana and the appeal against that order too was dismissed. Counsel also contended that on failure of Pritpal Singh to eject the tenant, the house has been transferred in the name of the landlords only with a view to eject the tenant.

Having heard the counsel and on going through the record, I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. At the outset it may be stated that finding with regard to personal requirement of the landlords has not been challenged and rightly so, because the Authorities on the appreciation of evidence on record has found that Baljit Kaur, one of the landlords and her husband-Amarjit Singh have got four children besides Jagat Ram, father-in-law of Baljit Kaur and are presently residing only in one room belonging to brother-in-law of Baljit Kaur. Challenge in this revision is limited only to the sale made in favour of the landlords on the ground that it is a Sham and paper transaction. It is not in dispute that Pritpal Singh, original owner and the present landlords are not even remotely related to each other. The house was purchased by means of two sale-deeds dated 23.9.1983 and 26.9.1983 respectively for total consideration of Rs. 60,000/- i.e. Rs. 30,000/-each. Half of the amount was paid at the time of agreement and the remaining half was paid to the previous owner before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of sale-deeds. The price paid for the house is not being questioned on the ground that it is inadequate. The earlier petition filed by the previous owner, reference of which has been made by counsel for the petitioner, was filed by Maya Wanti mother of Pritpal Singh and it was decided by the Rent Controller on 14.1.1976. The present ejectment petition has been filed by the landlords in the year 1987, i.e. after 11 years of the dismissal of the earlier petition. It has also come on record that after the death of Maya Wanti, Pritpal Singh, her son, inherited the house in dispute who has sold the house in September, 1983 by means of two sale-deeds in favour of the landlords. In these circumstances, it is erroneous to contend that in reality there was no sale and it was only a paper transaction with ulterior motive to eject the tenant.

It was next contended by the counsel that proper issues arising out of pleadings of the parties have not been framed and this has resulted in manifest injustice to the tenant. According to him, the tenant had taken a specific plea that the sale made in favour of the landlords is Sham and paper transaction and this having been denied by the landlords it became the duty of the Rent Controller to frame an issue arising out of that specific plea.

There is no dispute with the proposition that it is the duty of the Court to read the plaint and the written statement and to frame and record issues on which the right decision of the cases appears to depend after such examination of the parties as may appear necessary for the purpose of ascertaining above what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance. However, in this case no prejudice in this regard has been caused to the tenant as the plea is covered under issue No. 2, namely "whether the petition has been filed in collusion as mentioned in para No. 2 of the preliminary objection ?. If so, its effect ? OPR." Parties to the litigation were alive to the controversy and the plea raised by the tenant in this regard has not only been dealt with by the Rent Controller but also by the appellate Authority. The contention of counsel for the petitioner thus is without any merit.

Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to Costs.