Narinder Kumar Dureja vs Jugraj Singh Kang

Sabina, J.—Vide this order, Civil Revision Nos. 3287 and 3288 of 2007 would be disposed of as these have arisen out of judgment dated 3.4.2007. Respondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner by moving a petition u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (the Act for short).

Case of the landlord/respondent, in brief, was that Harjit Kaur and Karanbir Singh were owners of house No. 2015 Sector 15-C, Chandigarh. Respondent had purchased the said house from the owners vide sale deed dated 11.4.2001. The house in question had been transferred in the name of the respondent vide transfer letter dated 29.5.2001. The premises in question had been rented out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 5,200/- i.e. Rs. 4,000/- for the ground floor excluding water and electricity charges and Rs. 1,200/- for the room on the first floor excluding water and electricity charges. Respondent required the premises in question for his own personal use and occupation as he was going to retire on 30.6.2002. Respondent was in occupation of Government accommodation and was in occupation of two rooms on the ground floor adjoining the demised premises. The accommodation in question was insufficient for the respondent. Further it was prayed that the petitioner had failed to pay rent w.e.f. 24.8.1998 onwards.

Petitioner, in his written statement, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was averred that the sale deed in question had been got registered by mis-stating the facts and by playing fraud on the Administration. The conspiracy in question had been hatched in June 1996. Parveen Kaur sold the property to Harjit Kaur and Karanbir Singh vide a fake sale deed. On the basis of the said fake sale deed, respondent Jugraj Singh was claiming himself to be owner of the premises in question. Harjit Kaur and Karanbir Singh had no right, title or interest in the suit property and were not competent to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent. Matter was reported to the police but no action had been taken by the police or the Estate Office.

The Rent Controller, vide order dated 14.11.2005 allowed the ejectment petition on the ground of non payment of rent. Aggrieved against the said order, both the parties preferred appeals. Appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by the Appellate authority, whereas, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 3.4.2007. Hence, the present two petitions by the tenant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent was not the owner of the premises in question. In fact, the sale deed alleged to have been executed in favour of the respondent was a result of fraud as the alleged owners had no right, title or interest in the property in question. The Courts below had erred in holding that the petitioner was in arrears of rent. Since the respondent was not the owner of the property in question, he could not claim ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the sale deed in favour of the respondent was a duly registered document. Transfer letter had also been issued in favour of the respondent by the Estate Office on the basis of the sale deed executed by the vendor in favour of the respondent. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the statement of PW-3 Rajinder Sehgal.

In the present case, respondent has placed reliance on sale deed dated 11.4.2001 executed in his favour by Harjit Kaur and Karanbir Singh. PW-3 Rajinder Sehgal deposed that the property in question was transferred in the name of the respondent on 29.5.2001 on the basis of the registered sale deed executed in his favour by Harjit Kaur and Karanbir Singh. He proved the transfer letter Ex. PW 3/1. A perusal of the said letter reveals that the same has been issued by Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh and the property in question was transferred in the name of the respondent, on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 11.4.2001. There is nothing on record to suggest that the sale deed in favour of the respondent had been set aside. Petitioner, in his cross-examination, also admitted that the property in question had been transferred in the name of the respondent by the Estate Office and there were documents on record in this regard. He also admitted that he had not challenged the said order. He also admitted that he had not made any complaint to the police or any authority to the effect that a fraud had been played by some one with regard to sale of the house in question. Respondent was presently also residing in the tenanted premises. P W-5 Narinder Verma had categorically deposed that respondent could not reside in his commercial property in Sector 16 as the same was a shop-cum-office and not shop-cum-flat. Moreover, respondent had sold the said property vide sale deed dated 3.11.2004. Even otherwise, petitioner, who is a tenant over the premises in question, could not challenge the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent. Hence, the Courts below rightly held that the respondent was the owner/landlord qua the premises in question.

The next question that requires consideration is as to what was the rate of rent qua the premises in question. Case of the respondent was that the premises in question had been rented out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 5,200/-. On the other hand, case of the petitioner was that the rate of rent was Rs. 210/- per month. Petitioner, in his cross-examination deposed that he was working as Assistant Manager with CITCO, a Government organisation. He was claiming house rent @ Rs. 1,200/- per month. He admitted that he had submitted the first receipt of rent on his joining the CITCO in the year 1983. Thus, the petitioner was claiming Rs. 1,200/- per month as rent from his employer and had tendered a receipt qua payment of rent to his employer. In these circumstances, in view of the cross-examination of the petitioner, the Courts below rightly assessed the rate of rent at Rs. 1,200/- per month.

So far as the plea of the petitioner that he had paid rent to Gurdarshan Singh, Advocate for the period 1975-76 to June 1996 is concerned, the same has no relevance to the facts of the present case as it relates to a period earlier to the period in question in this case. It was only the plea of the petitioner that he used to pay rent to Gurdarshan Singh @ Rs. 210/- per month but no receipts in this regard were proved on record. Petitioner had also admitted in his cross-examination that he was not having any record regarding payment of rent to Gurdarshan Singh, Advocate for the period 1975-76 to June 1996 onwards. In these circumstances, the plea of the petitioner that the rate of rent was Rs. 210/- per month was rightly rejected by the Courts below. Petitioner had failed to establish that he had paid the rent w.e.f 24.8.1998 to 12.11.2005. Petitioner was granted one month''s time by the Rent Controller to make up the deficiency in the arrears of rent, failing which, he was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent within three months.

So far as the ground of personal necessity is concerned, learned Appellate Authority had rightly decided the same in favour of the respondent. The Rent Controller had held that the respondent was owner of shop-cum-flat No. 29, Sector 16, Chandigarh, and, therefore, could not seek ejectment of the tenant from the premises in question on the ground of personal necessity. However, PW-5 Narinder Verma has categorically deposed that the said premises was a shop-cum-office and not shop-cum-flat. Since the respondent was owner of shop-cum-office in Sector 16, Chandigarh, his ejectment petition on the ground of personal necessity qua residential premises was liable to be allowed. Respondent could not reside in the shop-cum-office. Moreover, the shop-cum-office in Sector 16, Chandigarh has been sold by the respondent. It was proved on record that the only residential premises owned by the respondent was house No. 2015, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh. Case of the respondent was that he required the entire house for his personal use. The said need of the respondent could not be doubted as now the respondent is a retired police officer and has vacated the Government accommodation allotted to him while he was in service. Petitioner, in his cross-examination, admitted that respondent was in occupation of only two rooms on the ground floor. He also admitted that respondent was not in possession of independent kitchen, latrine and bathroom in the house in question. In these circumstances, it was evident that the respondent required the entire residential house in question for his own personal use and occupation after his retirement.

It is a settled proposition of law that the landlord is best judge qua his need/requirement. Tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to in how much premises/area he should reside. The Appellate Authority had, thus, rightly upheld the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non payment of rent and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed.