Lakhbir Singh vs Ram Parkash

M.S. Liberhan, J.—Lakhbir Singh sought ejectment of Ram Parkash u/s 13-A of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act; (Amended Act, 1985) being a specified landlord, having retired from Punjab police service on March 31, 1986. It was claimed, that he did nor own and possess any other house at Phillaur. The tenant was inducted as such in January, 1990 at Ks. 100/- per month as rent. Non payment of rer4 was also asserted as the ground for ejectment.

The tenant was granted permission to defend the ejectment petition. No rent was, however, tendered. The relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. The demised premises were claimed to be taken on lease from Pritpal Singh, real brother of the landlord on payment of Ms. 50/- per mansem as the rent. Various other pleas was taken, which are not relevant for determination of the question raised in this Revision Petition.

The Rent Controller after appraising the oral evidence, including the statement of Pritpal Singh, as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Hence, the landlord was not the specified landlord as defined under the Act though he retired from police service of the State of Punjab, as claimed by him. Resultantly, the application was declined.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reasoning adopted by the Rent Controller to come to the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, cannot be sustained. The Rent Controller observed; (i) there is neither any Rent Note nor any Rent Receipt produced by either party; (ii) the tenancy was claimed to be oral by both the parties. The Sent Controller found force in the version given by the tenant of his being inducted as such by Pritpal Singh on account of the following circumstances : (a) that in assessment records of the Municipal Committee for the year 1983 84, Pritpal Singh has been recorded as owner of the demised premises and Ram Parkash as tenant Rs. 50/- per mensem as real. It is only after May 1986 that on persistent applications made by Pritpal Singh On May 18, 1986 and November 27, 1986 the name in the column of ownership was changed from Pritpal Singh to Lakhbir Singh in the Municipal assessment records, (b) while seeking the change in the ownership in the assessment records of She Municipal Committee. The parties are said to have given out versions on two different occasions, i e. May 18, 1986 and November 27, 1986. which are contradictory to each other. It was observed that Pritpal Singh while appearing as a witness admitted that no sanctioned plan from the Municipal'' Committee had been produced and it was adversely inferred that Lakhbir Singh was net the owner but, in fact, Pritpal Singh was the owner. The version of the oral partition as given by the parties was held to be not convincing as no written partition Deed had been produced on the file particularly in view of the fact that the other house which Pritpal Singh and his other brother claimed to have fallen to their share, still continues to be shown in the name of Jawala Singh, the deceased father of the landlord. Since no evidence has been brought on record by the landlord to show that he intimated to the Government the acquisition of house a Government Servant is required under Government Servants Conduct Rules to furnish to the'' Government intimation with respect to the acquisition of property. It was held to be reasonably sufficient to raise adverse inference against the landlord as having not acquired the property. It was further observed that since the change in ownership has been effected without notice to the proper party, i.e., the tenant, the change cannot be taken note of. Some other minor discrepancies with respect to the presence of persons at the time of creation of tenancy were taken note of.

In my considered opinion, none of reasons and circumstances pointed out by the Rent Controller, either collectively or serverally can sustain a finding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties Assessment Registers of the Municipal committee do not prove the relationship of landlord and tenant. Reference m3y be made to Jagan Nath v. Shrimati Santi Devi 1976 Cri. L. J. 312

It is well known that the brothers do partition the properties through oral partition. Both the brothers have appeared in the witness-box and stated to have partitioned the property and the premises in dispute is alleged to have fallen to the share of the petitioner landlord which fact has been given effect to in the Municipal record through a written application of Pritpal Singh whom the respondent admittedly claims to be the landlord, the respondent tenant cannot question the validity of transfer in ejectment proceedings Such a question is outside the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller Reference may be made with advantage to Sardani Kirpal Kaur v. Bhagwant Rai 1962 Cri. L. J. 314.

In may view on the question of title, the tenant has got no interest and the tenant cannot claim that the ownership should vest in a particular person. On the question of ownership the tenant is not even remotely either a proper or a necessary party. Thus, changing its record by the Municipal Committee and recognising a particular person to be the owner on the request of the person already recorded as owner, does not adversely affect the tenant. Neither be can oppose the transfer of title by the owner, nor the recognition by the owner of tie title of the person who is, in fact, the owner. It is not in dispute that Pritpal Singh claimed to be his landlord by the tenant, who is none else but the real brother of the landlord There is no dispute between the real brothers with respect to the demised premises being owned by their father along with other properties and there having been an oral partition. Assuming and attributing lack of bono fide is assumptuous. particularly when the Act has provided enough safeguards to the effect that in case the landlord gels an ejectment u/s 13-A of the Act and does not occupy the premises or leases it out within a period of three years, he is liable for criminal prosecution and conviction which is prima facie enough safeguard to deter the landlord to falsely claim the eviction under the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act. No rule has been pointed out under which a Government Servant is required to intimate the Government with respect to the acquisition of the property by inheritance from his father. Even if there is one and there is a violation of any such rule, the tenant cannot take advantage of the same, nor does it divest a person of its title. A person may be liable for disciplinary action for such a violation, but no such adverse inference can be raised. Construction of two rooms though there is no evidence for their construction in the year 1978 without the permission of the Municipal Committee, would not divest the parties from the title of the property. From a reading of oral evidence, it appears and it would be reasonable to infer that, in fact, Jawala Singh was the owner of the demised premises. Since Lakhbir Singh was in service, Pritpal Singh was looking after the property. The admission made by Pritpal Singh in the present case as well as by getting the petitioner recorded as the owner in the Municipal records, proves that the landlord is the owner of the demised premises and the respondent is his tenant.

There is no dispute that once the petitioner is held to be a landlord, he falls within the four corners of the definition of a specified landlord.

The learned counsel for the respondent contended that Pritpal Singh was recorded as owner since 1980 and Jawala Singh, their father having died in 1983, no steps having been taken to get the name of the landlord recorded in the Municipal records and there being no evidence of partition and nothing done in consequence of it till the retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be held to be a specified landlord. I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. As has been earlier observed in the face of the statement of the real brother alleged to be the owner to the effect that the property belonged to Jawala Singh and in oral, partition had taken to the share of the petitioner, all other matters including negligence for not pursuing the matter regarding the entry to be get recorded in the official record, is not of much consequence, nor can the tenant defeat the right of the landlord for his lick of action The tenant cannot deprive the landlord of his restricted right to seek ejectment.

It is well settled by judicial pronouncements that it is for the party alleging the payment of rent to prove the same. Mere statement that the rent has been paid, is not sufficient. There is nothing on the record to prove the payment of rent. Even with respect to rate of rent, there is no evidence except the oral statements of the parties. The rate of rent recorded in the Municipal record cannot be taken to be the actual rate of rent, as there is no evidence whether the rate of rent recorded in the Municipal record is a fair rent or the actual rent paid by the tenant. Without giving any finding with respect to the rate of rent even believing the oral version of the tenant that the rate of rent was Rs. 50/-per mensem, no rent has been tendered. Thus, in these summary proceedings, even if the rent is assessed at Rs. 50/- per mensem, a finding was to given that rent has not been paid. The observations made with respect to the rate of rent shall not be binding between the parties, if either of the parties chooses to get the rate of rent determined in a regular suit.

In view of the observations made above, the Revision Petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The respondent is ordered to be ejected

No order as to costs.

On the request of the counsel for the respondent, however, the respondent is allowed to vacate the premises on or before the expiry of three months subject to the payment of arrears of rent and an under taking being filed within four weeks that the vacant possession shall be handed over to the petitioner.