Moti Ram vs Karam Singh

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This is plaintiff''s appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated 18.7.1983 whereby appeal preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was accepted and suit of the plaintiff dismissed.

The defendant is the owner of the property in dispute and he let out the same to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 120/-per annum vide rent note dated 25.4.1959 for a period of ten years. By virtue of the rent note the plaintiff was authorised to raise construction thereon. The plaintiff constructed two shops on the property in dispute and carried on his business till 28.7.1971 on which date the shops were demolished by the defendant. The plaintiff again started construction of shops. The defendant threatened to obstruct the construction which led to the filing of the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the construction of the shops by the plaintiff over the property in dispute.

The defendant put in appearance, filed written statement and controverted the allegations contained in the plaint. He denied lease in favour of the plaintiff for construction of shops. He also averred that the period of lease expired in 1969.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court.

"1. By whom the constructions of site in dispute has been raised ? O. P. Parties.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? O. P. P.

Relief."

The trial Court came to the conclusion that the shops were constructed by the plaintiff and in view of the terms of the rent note he was entitled to the injunction, consequently, suit of the plaintiff was decided by the trial Court.

The learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, for the view that after expiry of the period of lease there was no relationship of landlord and tenant subsisting between the parties and the right to raise construction to the tenant did not subsist, relied upon Gurdas Ram v. Hans Raj 1978 (2) R. L. R. 421. and held that in the present case the right of construction given to the plaintiff ceased to exist after the expiry of the period stipulated in the rent note. The learned Additional District Judge also relied on Kartar Singh v. Tarlok Singh (1973) 75 P. L. R. 824. Wherein it was held that sub-tenants continuing after the expiry of the period of lease have to be treated to have been inducted without any authority and the tenant was guilty of sub-letting. Consequently, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not claim the right to construct the shops, thus accepted the appeal of the defendant and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction. Hence this appeal.

I have heard Mr. M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gurdial Singh, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the- evidence, oral and documentary, led in the case

The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court on the ground that the appellant was put in possession of the suit property pursuant to the lease deed duly executed by him in favour of of the respondent. As per terms of the lease deed, the appellant was entitled to raise construction thereupon, which he in fact raised and started doing his business of Halwai. The lease was for ten years and after the expiry of the lease period status of the appellant became that of a statutory tenant whose rights are fully protected under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The learned counsel relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as M/s Bhagwan Singh and Company v. The Central Bank of India, Kaithal (1988) 93 P.L.R. 290, further urged that even after the expiry of the period of tenancy, the parties are governed by the terms of the lease deed in case these do not contravene any provision of the Rent Act In the instant case'', there is no such contravention and as such, argued the learned counsel the appellant is entitled to remain in possession of the property without any interference and has also a right to raise construction thereupon which has been demolished by the respondent un-authorisedly ; or in any case the respondent has no right to interfere in peaceful possession of the appellant.

On the other hand, Mr. Gurdial Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent has tried to support the conclusion of the lower appellate Court on question of law and fact. By referring to the statement of Munshi Ram (D. W. 1) and Surinder Singh, Clerk of Municipal Committee, Tanda, who has proved site plan Exhibit D. 1/A, the counsel urged that the shops in fact were constructed by Karam Singh. As regards the legal position as to whether a lessee has a right to raise construction after the expiry of the lease period, the learned counsel referred to the judgment reported as Gurdas Ram v. Hans Raj 1978 (2) R. L. R. 421, for the proposition that after the expiry of lease there was no subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and, thus, the tenant had no right to sublet the premises. He also cited judgment reported as Kartar Singh v. Tarlok Singh (1973) 75 P. L. R. 824. which is to the similar effect.

The parties, in deed are at variance with regard to the fact whether the construction was raised upon the plot after the execution of the lease deed by the plaintiff or the defendant. The plaintiff in support of his case relied upon the lease deed wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the lessee shall have right to raise construction upon the vacant site let out to him and he, in fact, raised shop thereupon which, however was demolished by the defendant ; thereby compelling the plaintiff to seek appropriate relief from the Court. The defendant, however, has tried to refute this assertion of the plaintiff by making reference to the site plan which was got approved by Karam Singh-defendant. As is well-known the right to raise construction upon the vacant site vests with the owner and obviously for this reason the site plan had to be submitted by Karam Singh. Except for this evidence, there is no material on record by which it can be inferred that the building was raised by the defendant. Even otherwise also, the contention of the defendant stands belied as subsequently Karam Singh filed as many as three eviction applications u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking possession of the vacant site only. Thus I am of the view that construction was raised by the plaintiff pursuant to the lease deed executed by him in favour of the defendant.

The next question is as to whether the building so raised has been demolished by the defendant, if so whether the plaintiff has a right to raise fresh construction even after the expiry of the lease period, Except for the assertion of the appellant that building has been demolished by the defendant, there is no other proof on record. Even the Courts below have not recorded any finding in this regard. So it cannot be said with certainty that the building was demolished by the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is in possession of the suit land after the expiry of the lease period and is thus a statutory tenant who is liable to be evicted under the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as the said Act is applicable. The plaintiff has a right to remain in possession of the suit property on the same terms and conditions as held by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Bhagwan Singh and Company''s case (supra). The intended construction is also with a view to make use of the property and thus cannot be said to have contravened any of the provisions of the lease deed. This being the position, the respondent has no right to interfere in the peaceful possession of the appellant. Under our jurisprudence even an unauthorised occupant cannot be evicted except in due course of law.

Consequently I accept this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and grant injunction restraining the respondent from interfering in the peaceful possession of the appellant, otherwise than in due course of law. No costs.