Harkunbh Rai vs Parkash Chand

H.S. Bedi, J.—The present petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 25th July, 1980 confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Parkash Chand, Landlord-respondent herein, made an application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the petitioner-tenant Harkunbh Rai for securing his eviction from the premises in dispute on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.4.1965 and that he had demolished the western wall of the aforesaid premises thereby impairing its utility. The tenant resisted the petition and denied the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and further went on to say that he had got the premises along with the adjoining shop on lease from Kishori Lai father of the landlord and had duly executed a rent note in favour of Kishori Lal on 12.1.1967. He also claimed that the rent upto 31.12.1971 had been paid to Kishori Lal and the rent for the subsequent period sent to him through money orders had not been accepted. It is also urged that the disputed property was, in fact a property of Hindu Joint Family and Kishori Lai aforesaid was the Karta thereof. The Rent Controller framed the following issues:

1) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OP A

2) If issued No. 1 is proved, whether the respondent is liable to ejectment from the premises in dispute on the ground taken in application?OPA

3) Whether the application is bad for want of any notice to the respondent?OPR.

4) Whether Kishore Lal is the landlord of the respondent for the shop in dispute, if so, its effect?QPR.

5) Whether the application is liable to be stayed as stated in he written reply of the respondent.?OPR.

6) Relief.

Issues Nos. 1 to 3 were decided in favour of the landlord and the others against the tenant with the result that order of eviction was made. The appeal taken by the tenant having been dismissed, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

It has been urged by Mr. J.R. Mittal leanrned Snior o . appearing for die petitioner that it was been found by the court below that the story with regard to the demolition of the wan has been found to be false to be false and the only issue that survived was with regard to the non-payment of rent. It has also been urged that as the relationship of landlord qua the petitioner and Parkash Chand had been denied, the crucial question that would arise, would be as to whether such a relationship did exist between the two and if it was found so to exist, the petition was liable to dismissal. The Courts below in determining the question of relationship interse between the parties had placed reliance on Ex.Pl, the rent note that was said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of Parkash Chand respondent. The Courts relied on the evidence adduced in the case including the reports of the Handwriting and Finger Print Experts produced by the respective parties he. inder Bhushan Bhatnagar and Diwan K.S. Puri on behalf of the landlord and Sh. K.C. Jaiduka for the respondent -Petitioner and came to the conclusion that the rent note Ex.Pl had been executed by the petitioner. The petitioner''s counsel has, therefore, tried to dislodge this finding by urging with some vehemence that in the earlier litigation between Satpal the brother of Parkash Chand, respondent and the present petitioner with regard to the adjoining shop which also was in possession of the petitioner as a tenant, a finding had been recorded that Kishori Lal was, in fact, the landlord of the entire premises i.e. including the shop which is the subject matter of the dispute in the present case and that Kishori Lal was also the KARTA of the joint family of himself and his sons.

Mr. Sarin, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, argued that the rent note Ex.Pl had been proved by Hans Raj AW-2 and also by the evidence of the expert witnesses and in the face of this fact the assertion that the real landlord of the premises was Kishori Lai was irrelevant, more so, as in the earlier suit, Parkash Chand respondent herein was not a party.

I have heard the learned counsel on this aspect and find that the rent note Ex.Pl has been duly proved and in the light of this situation, the assertion that the finding in the earlier suit between Satpal and the petitioner that Kishori Lal was the landlord of the adjoining shop would not have any relevance. Mr. Mittal''s submission placing reliance upon Sahu Madho Das and Others Vs. Mukand Ram and Another, that a finding in the earlier suit was binding on the parties herein, is misplaced. A bare reading of this judgment would indicate that the maximum that could be said with regard to the earlier litigation was, it could or a precedent to a certain extent and no more. Mr. Sarin, to counter this argument has placed reliance on R. Viswanathan Vs. Rukn-Ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid, in which it has been held with reference to Sections 40 to Sections 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, that a judgment in rem was contemplated only in a specific class of cases and admittedly the dispute with regard to the relationship interse between the landlord and a tenant is not covered thereby. Even, therefore, assuming for a moment that there was some evidence to show relationship interse in the shape of the judgment in the earlier proceedings that judgment could not be even termed to be precedent in the present proceedings.

It has next been argued by Mr. Mittal, that independent of the findings in the earlier suit, there was other evidence to the effect that the real owner of the premises was Kishori Lal as KARTA of the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of himself and his :.one. He has brought to my pointed attention the plea of the landlord in which the assertions made by the petitioner that the property in dispute belonged to Hindu Undivided Family has been denied for want of knowledge. It has been urged placing reliance on Jahuri Sah and Others Vs. Dwarka Prasad Jhunjhunwala and Others, and Dhirendra Chandra Saha and Others Vs. Tripura Administration, the denial for want of knowledge is no denial in the eyes of law. I have examined this argument as well and find no merit in this argument. In this connection, it should be noted that Kishori Lal was produced as a witness by the tenant-petitioner and was also examined by the landlord and he denied that he was owner of the shop or that he had given it on rent to the petitioner. The Courts below accordingly found that there was no evidence produced by the petitioner in the shape of Income Tax Return or otherwise that the shop in dispute belonged to Kishori Lal or to the Hindu Undivided Family.

Mr. Mittal, learned counsel has further argued that from the receipts Ex.R2 to Ex.R45 and the fact that the landlord/respondent kept quite for a period of almost 10 years before filing the eviction application, was indicating the fact that the respondent was not the sub-landlord of the premises in dispute. In support of his plea with regard to the detailed appreciation, has placed reliance on Mehar Chand v. Tilak Raj Girdhar (1982)84 P.L.R.13 and Raj Kumar v. Ram Parkash 1982 (1) R.L.R. 219.

I have considered this argument as well and find no merit in the same. It is true that a large number of receipts i.e. Ex.R2 to Ex.R45 have been produced on the record and they do show that the rent was being taken by the brothers of the petitioner, but it is equally clear that the aforesaid receipts do not prove that they pertained to the premises in dispute or that the brother was authorised to collect the rent on behalf of the respondent. Admittedly, there has been some delay in filing of the petition on the ground of non-payment of rent, but that fact by itself would not displace the case of the respondent, more particularly, as it has been found by me concurrently with the Courts below that rent note Ex.Pl was duly executed between the parties.

The final argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the rent note Ex.Pl was required to be registered, failing which, it was not admissible in evidence. This argument too, is without merit, as it has been held that the rent note being a unilateral document does not require registration. It is also to be borne in mind that the petitioner had tried to displace the case of the respondent by stating that although he had taken the shop in dispute on rent from April 1, 1965, yet a rent note was allegedly executed by him in favour of Kishori Lal in the year 1967. The petitioner had tried to prove the execution of ''his rent nut.; by referring to an entry in the Deed Writer''s Register to that effect but rent note has admittedly not been produced in evidence and the Courts below have found that the fact that it had not been explained as to why there was a gap of two years between the inception of the tenancy and the execution of the rent note in the year 196"/ indicate that no such rent note existed.

I am also not unmindful of the position that sitting on the rcvisional side, interference on a finding of fact recorded by the Courts below should be made only in exceptional cases as held in Shiv Lal v. Sat Parkash and Anr. 1993 H.R.R. 267 and K.A. Anthappai Vs. C. Ahammed, . The facts of the case before me do not warrant any interference whatsoever. The present petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner is, however, allowed two month''s time to vacate the premises in dispute provided he deposits the rent as claimed in advance within a period of fifteen days from today and also furnishes an undertaking before the Rent Controller that he shall vacate the premises in dispute on the expiry of the Petition allowed