AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
CM No. 14238-CII of 2013
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the applicants are permitted to file the instant revision petition on behalf of Parbhat Singh Pathania son of Nand Singh, as his heirs and Legal Representatives for the purpose of this petition.
Civil Revision No. 3957 of 2013
As per the pleadings, respondent No. 1 is a Charitable Trust Society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and respondent No. 2 is Secretary of said Society and being fully conversant with the facts of the case and having been duly authorized by resolution of respondent No. 1, is competent to file the instant ejectment petition.
It is the case of respondent-landlord that the disputed premises, which consists of an open Ahata along with three built rooms, as shown in the site plan, was let out to Pt. Bishamber Dass son of Pt. Hans Raj (predecessor in interest of petitioner No. 1). After his death, the premises in question continued to be occupied by petitioner No. 1 as a tenant under respondent No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-, and thus, is a statutory tenant.
The respondent-landlord filed ejectment petition against the petitioners on the following grounds:
(i) That petitioner No. 1 is in arrears of rent with effect from 01.10.1993;
(ii) That after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, ''the Act'') petitioner No. 1 has committed such acts as are likely to impair the value or utility of the rented premises, without the written consent of the landlord;
(iii) That petitioner No. 1, after commencement of the Act, has transferred his rights under the lease or sub-let various portions of the tenanted premises to petitioners No. 2 to 10 without the written consent of the landlord;
(iv) That petitioner No. 1, after commencement of the Act and without the consent of the respondent-landlord, has changed the user of the premises in dispute; and
(v) That the respondent-landlord requires the premises in question for its own bonafide need, use and occupation as the respondent-Society wants to reconstruct the portion in question and wants to run a charitable hospital and dispensary in the said premises for the welfare of general public and the residents of Pathankot.
Upon notice, the petitioners appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections including the one regarding locus-standi of respondent No. 2 to file the eviction petition on behalf of the respondent-Trust. On merits, it was admitted that respondent No. 1 is a Trust. It was stated that the premises in question were let out vide registered lease deed dated 14.03.1956, further pleading that initially the lease was for a period of ten years incorporating the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. Bishamber Dass had since expired, petitioner No. 1 inherited the tenancy rights of his father. It was further pleaded that at that time the rate of rent was Rs. 100/- per month. It was denied that the petitioners were liable to be evicted from the premises in question on any of the grounds. It was also denied that petitioner No. 1 had transferred his rights under the lease or sub-let various portions of the rented premises to petitioners No. 2 to 10 without the written consent of the landlords or without their knowledge. It was further pleaded that as a matter of fact, Bishamber Dass was authorized to raise structure/building of any type in the said premises and to derive benefit of it by subletting the same, and there was no restriction in subletting of the premises in the constructions made by the tenants and accordingly Bishamber Dass inducted various tenants under the express consent of the landlords and to their full knowledge without any objections from them. It was further denied that the respondent-landlord required the premises in dispute for its bonafide use and occupation for the purpose, as enumerated in the eviction petition.
In the rejoinder, the respondent-landlord denied the averments made in the written statement and reiterated its claim as made in the eviction petition.
From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent since 1.10.93 and the tender made by the respondent is short and invalid? OPA
Whether respondent has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises? OPA
Whether respondent No. 1 has sublet the demised premises to respondents No. 2 to 10? OPA
Whether the petitioner requires the demised premises for its own use and occupation? OPA
Whether the applicant has no locus standi to file the present petition on behalf of trust society? OPR
Whether applicant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present application? OPR
Relief.
After considering the evidence on record, ejectment of the petitioners from the demised premises was ordered by the Rent Controller on the ground of impairing the value and utility of the demised premises, sub-letting the demised premises by petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioners No. 2 to 10 and on the ground of bonafide need of respondent-landlord. All other grounds for eviction were rejected. It was further found that respondent No. 2 was competent to file the petition on behalf of respondent No. 1.
Aggrieved from the aforesaid order of eviction, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. While deciding the appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on issue No. 2 holding that the landlord was not competent to allege that the tenant has changed the user of the demised premises or has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by raising construction over it.
However, the findings on issue No. 3 were affirmed holding that the demised premises were sub-let by petitioner No. 1 to petitioners No. 2 to 10 without the written consent of the landlords. The findings of the Rent Controller on issue No. 4 with regard to bonafide need of the respondent-landlord were also upheld.
Still not satisfied, the petitioners i.e. the tenant as well as the sub-tenants, have approached this Court by filing the instant revision petition, challenging the findings of the authorities below on the issue of sub-letting and bonafide need of the respondent-landlord.
Admittedly, petitioner No. 1 has inducted the sub-tenants in the premises in dispute. Reference be made to his cross-examination which reads thus:
..... The total rental being paid by my tenants to me amounts to Rs. 2350/- per month. I received Rs. 50/- from Charan Dass, Rs. 150/- from Parbhat Singh Pathania, Rs. 40/- from Manohar Lal and Atma Ram, Rs. 60/- from Kasturi Lal, Rs. 800/- from Saudagar Mal, Rs. 450/- from Madan Lal, Rs. 300/- from Tilak Raj, Rs. 260/- from Mohan Lal cycle Mart. I issued rent receipts to them.....
However, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the courts below have misread and misinterpreted the lease deed dated 14.03.1956 as according to condition No. 3 of the said lease deed, the execution of which is not in dispute, the petitioners were entitled to raise any type of construction over the demised premises and take benefit of it, meaning thereby that consent was given by the landlord to petitioner No. 1 for sub-letting the same.
Condition No. 3, as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, reads thus:
A perusal of the aforesaid condition clearly shows that the tenant was entitled to raise any type of construction over the vacant land which was tenanted by the respondent-landlord and can install or make any kind of factory over the same and can take benefit of it.
According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the aforesaid condition clearly lays that the tenant was at liberty to take benefit of the tenanted premises in any manner which includes subletting also.
The ground, as raised, is misconceived.
The ground of sub-letting, as envisaged u/s 3(2)(ii)(a) of the Act reads thus:
13(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied--
(ii) that the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord--
(a) transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof.
A perusal of the aforesaid provision of the Act would show that sub-letting can be permitted only with the written consent of the landlord, which is express.
A bare reading of the aforesaid condition does not suggest the meaning as interpreted by learned counsel for the petitioners. In fact from a reading of the condition as aforesaid, it is made out that the tenant was entitled to raise construction of his choice at his own expense and could install any kind of factory/machinery over it and take benefit of the same. The said condition is categoric and specific and cannot be interpreted to say that there is implied consent of the landlord for sub-letting the tenanted premises, what to talk of the express consent.
In fact, while appearing as RW-4, petitioner No. 1-tenant has admitted that there is no such consent of the respondent-landlord for sub-letting the tenanted premises. Relevant paragraph of cross-examination of petitioner No. 1 who appeared as RW 4 reads thus:
...... There is no reference of sub letting in the lease deed but it is mentioned therein that the lessee can raise single storey or double storey building in the premises at his own expense and can derive benefit (Mufaad) out of it. There is no written consent given by the landlord to sub let the premises.
In view of the aforesaid admission, the concurrent findings of the courts below on the aforesaid issue of subletting, which is essentially a finding of fact, cannot be found fault with.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further challenged the findings of the courts below on the issue of bonafide requirement of the respondent-landlord. It has been argued before this Court that the findings of the courts below are not based upon any evidence and in fact, both the courts below without discussing the evidence on record in this regard have given the finding in favour of respondent-landlord, just after discussing the law, and therefore, this ground is not made out and the same is liable to be reversed in favour of the petitioners.
Again, the argument raised is liable to be rejected out rightly.
The respondent-landlord in its eviction petition has specifically pleaded its bonafide requirement to set up a Charitable hospital and dispensary in the tenanted premises. The aforesaid pleadings are duly supported by the statement of the respondent-landlord.
The ground raised has been contested by the petitioners on the ground that the area of Pathankot does not require any such Charitable hospital and moreover, no such charitable work has been done by the respondents-landlords in the area nor they have any resources to do so, and thus, it cannot be held that the respondents require the premises in question for their bonafide use.
At this stage, it may be noticed that the law pertaining to bonafide requirement of the rented premises by the landlord is well settled. Hon''ble the Supreme Court as well as this Court in various judgments have laid down the ratio of law in the following words:
(1) That while establishing case of the bonafides of requirement the tenant can not dictate terms or question the bona fides of the landlord. The landlord would be the best judge of his requirement.
(2) That the Rent Controller can not begin with the presumption that there was lack of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord.
(3) That the landlords would have complete freedom to decide nature of business which he would carry on.
Thus, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioners is without any basis. Once the respondent-landlord has pleaded its specific need which has been further corroborated by his statement, the Rent Controller cannot presume the same to be lacking in bonafides. In fact, the need of the respondent-landlord is to be taken as genuine and it is only if there is evidence led on behalf of the tenant to the contrary such ground is to be rejected. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record produced on behalf of the petitioners-tenants to controvert the said bonafide requirement of the respondent-landlord. The grounds as raised are not available to the petitioners in view of the well settled proposition of law in this regard.
No other argument has been raised.
Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed.