Nirmal Singh vs Balwant Kaur and others

G.C. Mital, J.—On the face of the order of the Rent Controller dated 20/12/1984, there might have been something to be said in favour of Nirmal Singh, who is the alleged sub-tenant of the premises which, according to Smt. Balwant Kaur landlady, had been let out to the Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee in 1958. After the Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee''s office shifted to Sector 15, Chandigarh to its own building in 1977, Nirmal Singh is alleged to have continued in possession of the premises and Smt. Balwant Kaur filed an application on the ground of sub-letting and non-payment of rent. The Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee did not put in appearance and was proceeded ex parte. Nirmal Singh sub-tenant appeared and pleaded that Smt. Balwant Kaur was not the landlady. According to him the house was let out to him by Harbax Singh Sibia to whom he had been paying the rent. In those proceedings on 28/10/1983, the evidence of the landlady was to be recorded. The landlady''s witnesses were present. On that date the case was called thrice and since none appeared on behalf of Nirmal Singh sub-tenant, the Rent Controller waited till 3.20 p.m. and ultimately started recording the statement of the landlady''s witnesses ex parte. The arguments were also heard on that date and the case was posted for orders on 29/10/1983. On 29.10.1983, the order of ejectment was passed.

The alleged sub-tenant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the C. P. C, on 7.11.1983 for setting aside the ejectment order and the proceedings dated 28-10-1983 on the ground that his counsel fell sick on 28-10-1983 and while going home, he instructed another advocate to seek adjournment and that that advocate unfortunately did not appear in Court. The application was opposed by the landlady and the matter was tried to find out whether sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte order was shown or not. The Rent Controller by order dated 20-10-1984 rejected the application after recording the finding that no sufficient ground for setting aside the ex parte order was made out. Against the aforesaid order Nirmal Singh sub-tenant went up in appeal before the District Judge. Ultimately, that appeal was dismissed as incompetent by order dated 14/10/1985 and this revision has been filed by the sub-tenant against the original order of the Rent Controller dismissing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. Exclusion of time for the period he prosecuted the appeal, has been prayed for.

The alleged landlord of Nirmal Singh, Harbax Singh Sibia, filed a suit for declaration of ownership of the house in dispute and for permanent injunction against Smt. Balwant Kaur landlady and Nirmal Singh, the alleged sub-tenant. In that suit he was not granted temporary injunction staying the execution of the decree of Smt. Balwant Kaur against him and Nirmal Singh. He took up the matter in appeal and finally remained unsuccessful in this Court. Thereafter, his suit was dismissed on 19/7/1984 in default. Therefore, it is is clear that Harbax Singh Sibia is out of picture. It deserves to be noticed that he claimed ownership on the basis of adverse possession. Once Harbax Singh Sibia is out of picture because of the failure of his suit, it is clear that Nirmal Singh is matching time to continue in possession and since he has no defence, a device was cooked upto be absent on 28/10/1983 and not to appear in Court and then to apply for setting aside ex parte proceedings merely with an ulterior motive to delay the proceedings.

When Smt. Balwant Kaur took out execution of the ejectment order, Nirmal Singh took the ground that his application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the C. P. C. was pending but the Executing Court ordered that Nirmal Singh should deposit the entire arrears of rent within 15 days. It further ordered that on deposit of the arrears of rent, the execution would remain stayed but on failure to deposit the rent, the execution will proceed. Nirmal Singh did not deposit the arrears of rent and instead filed C. R. No. 3128 of 1983 in this Court. The said revision was dismissed by this Court. Shri Sarin states that his client has not been paid rent of the premises from 1.1.1977 till date at the rate of Rs. 450/-per month in respect of the house on 500 Sq. yards of land in Chandigarh. I had put it to the counsel for Nirmal Singh if his client was ready to deposit the rent from 1.1.1977 till date in this Court so as to give him an opportunity to defend the ejectment proceedings after setting aside the ex parte ejectment order dated 29.10.1983 and the proceedings dated 28/10/1983 but he pleaded that his client is not prepared to pay the same. It is worthwhile to note that these days rent of a house built on a plot measuring 500 Sq yds. is not less than Rs. 2500/- per month.

Nirmal Singh''s own case is that he is the tenant of the premises. He pleaded tenancy under Harbax Singh Sibia. Harbans Singh Sibia is neither found to be the owner nor in possession of the premises. It would have been not only equitable but also just and proper that the rent should have been deposited. The non-deposit of the rent clearly shows that Nirmal Singh wants to continue in possession of the premises not only illegally but also without payment of rent. In this view of the matter, I have come to the conclusion that all these proceedings taken either by Harbax Singh Sibia or by Nirmal Singh are nothing but an abuse of process of Court to delay the delivery of possession to the owner Smt. Balwant Kaur.

For the reasons recorded above, this revision is dismissed with special costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. The Executing Court is directed to see that the possession of the premises is delivered to the landlady within a fortnight from today with a report to this Court.