Krishan Gopal and Anr. vs Ramesh Kumar Jain.

Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral) - C.M. No.15330 of 2015

The present application is for pre-ponement of hearing of the case and since the main case is listed for hearing today the same has been rendered infructuous.

Disposed of as such.

CR No. 4414 of 2015

Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 18.05.2015 passed by the Rent Controller, Karnal vide which the eviction petition for ejectment under Section 13 (A) (1-A) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 1973 Act) has been allowed in the light of the fact that the leave to defend was not granted by the Rent Controller which order has attained finality up to this Court.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition for ejectment was not maintainable as one petition is not maintainable against two separate tenants having separate tenancy and for separate purposes. He contends that even if leave to defend has been declined but still the landlord has to stand on his own legs with regard to the petition being maintainable. If the petition itself is not maintainable, ejectment order could not have been passed by the Rent Controller. He accordingly states that the impugned order cannot sustain, specially in the light of the fact that the tenancy is different, in support of which he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Surinder Singh and another v. Rup Kaur and others, 1986(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 53 as also Manohar Singh Sarhadi v. Ramji Dass and another, 1989 Vol. (2) PLR 444. He thus contends that the present petition may be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the provisions of the 1975 Act to contend that one petition is maintainable even against different tenants if the premises is one and the cause is common. That apart, he asserts that once a leave to defend has been declined, eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as an automatic consequence. In support of this, he has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Anwar Ali v. Gian Kaur, 2012, Volume (I) HLR 142. Reference has also been made to the eviction petition which has been filed to contend that the premises in question is one integral building although there are two tenants in the premises. He accordingly prays that the present revision petition be dismissed.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petition for ejectment is not maintainable against two different tenants, who have been given different premises on rent for different purposes, is not acceptable in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in Anita Sood and others v. Manjit Singh, 2011 (I) HLR 498 where it has specifically been held that single eviction petition against two tenants of same building occupying adjacent premises would be maintainable against both the tenants. This has also been held in Raman Mittal v. Mangal Singh, 2011 Volume (2) HLR 270, where in a similar case the plea so raised that landlord''s application was contested by the tenant contending that single petition against the tenants was not maintainable, was rejected.

A perusal of the eviction petition which has been filed, copy of which has been placed on record, would clearly indicate that it has been specifically mentioned that these two shops are integral part of one building and, therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the petition against two tenants would not be maintainable, cannot be accepted as Section 13 (3) of the Act talks about ''a building.'' The contention, thus, of the counsel for the petitioner, stands rejected.

As regards the reliance of the counsel for the petitioners on the judgments of this Court in Surender Singh''s case (Supra) is concerned, that was a case where the ownership has fallen into different hands because of the succession where the landlords were different after the partition and had been collecting rent separately in their individual capacity as landlord from the tenants. Present is a case where there is no dispute that the landlord is one and also the owner of the premises.

In Manohar Singh''s case (Supra) the plea which was taken was that one petition cannot not be maintainable against two separate tenancies. Suffice it is to say that in the said case the premises had been sought to be evicted on the ground of sub-letting by taking a plea that the chabutra portion had been sub-let which was constructed later which led to the building being divided into two portions, one for commercial purpose and another for the residential. Further the Court observed that there was no sub-letting of the premises as the person who was residing there was related to the tenant and was only in his absence residing to take care of the goods which were lying in the premises on the ground floor. The said judgment also, therefore, would not be of any help to the petitioners.

I have perused the order passed by the Rent Controller and do not find any illegality in the same as it is not in dispute that the leave to defend had been declined and the said order has attained finality after the dismissal of the revision petition by this Court preferred by the petitioner-tenants. In these circumstances, the Rent Controller had no option but to pass an order of ejectment in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in Anwar Ali''s case (Supra), where it has been held that where under Section 13 (B) of the Act, leave is refused to a tenant to defend the proceedings brought by the landlord, eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as an automatic consequence.

In view of the above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed.

In the light of the dismissal of the petition, all pending applications stand disposed of as in fructuous.