Om Parkash Rohila vs Sat Pal and Another

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This is landlord''s revision-petition against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby order of the Rent Controller dismissing his eviction application has been upheld.

Briefly put, Om Parkash filed a petition u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') against the respondents for their eviction from a double storeyed building at Birla Mandir Road, Thanesar on the ground that (i) that the respondent has not paid the arrears of rent w. e. f. 1.3.1980 to date amounting to Rs. 8,750/- together with interest and house-tax ; (ii) that respondent No. 1 has sublet the chaubara and compound on the first floor to respondent No. 2 without his written consent ; (iii) that respondent No. 1 was given the chaubara and compound on the first floor for residential purposes but respondent No. 2 has set up his office, as such, changed the user for which it was let out ; (iv) respondent No. 1 has committed such acts as are likely to impair the value and utility of the building in dispute ; (v) the petitioner requires the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation.

Both the respondents, who are real brothers, filed a joint written statement. It has been averted in the written statement that the premises in dispute is owned by Munshi Ram, father of the petitioner and Sumer Chand. They further averred that the premises in dispute was never rented out for residential purpose. Rest of the averments with regard to the non-payment of rent regularly or there being any agreement to pay the house-tax in addition to the rent were denied. It was also denied that the petitioner requires the premises in dispute for personal residence.

On the pleadings of the parties, a number of issues were framed by the Rent Controller. However, the contest between the parties mainly remained with regard to the following issues which are hereunder reproduced :

(1) Whether there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and respondent No. 1 ? OPP

(2) Whether the respondent are liable to ejectment from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent ? OPP

(3) Whether respondent No. 1 has sub-let the Chobara and compound on the the first floor of demised premises to respondent No. 2, without the written consent of the applicant ? OPP

(4) Whether the respondent No. 1 has changed the user of the chobara and compound on the first floor, so, to what effect ? OPA

(5) Whether respondent No. 1 has committed and has caused to be committed acts as are likely to impair the value and utility of the building in dispute ? OPA

(6) Whether the applicant requires the tenanted premises bona fide for his own occupation as alleged ? OPA

(9) Whether the application is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR

(11) Whether the applicant has got no locus standi to file and maintain the present petition ? OPR

(13) Whether the application does not disclose any cause of action, if so, its effect ? OPR

Rent Controller under issue No. 1 came to the conclusion that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Issue No 2 was decided against the landowner holding that respondents have tendered the rent and house-tax within 15 days of the first date of hearing Issues No 3, 4, 5 and 6 were decided against the petitioner. Issues No. 7, 8, 10 and 12 were not pressed during the course of arguments and so these were decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Under issues No 9 and 12, it was held that the petitioner is not proved to be the land-owner and so the present petition is not maintainable Resultantly the application was dismissed vide order dated 6. 9.1988.

The Appellate Authority once again examined the various contentions raised by the landlord but found no merit in any of these and dismissed the appeal

Before me, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the findings of the authorities below on the ground that the authorities have, clearly erred in law in construing the definition of landlord as given in section 2(c) of the Act. For facility of reference, it is reproduced as under :-

"Landlord'' means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf, or for the benefit, of any other person, or as a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person, and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter provided and every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord."

According to the counsel for the petitioner, the landlord would include an owner and even if some other person has let out the premises on rent, for all intents and purposes, it would be deemed as if the premises in dispute had been rented out by the owner. The landlord is a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf of other person. He alone is entitled to claim rent or seek eviction of a tenant inducted by him u/s 13 of the Act. There is no proof on record that respondents were inducted as tenants by the petitioner the owner. In the absence 6f any relationship of a landlord and a tenant between an owner and a sitting tenant, owner cannot initiate any proceedings for eviction of the respondent u/s 13 of the Act for the sole reason that owner does not come within the definition of landlord. Thus, I find no merit in this sub-mission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The next submission of the learned counsel is that in fact Sukhdev Singh, who is stated to have induced the respondent as tenant in fact acted on his behalf and so, the relationship so created by Sukhdev Singh should be deemed for all intents and purposes as if the petitioner let out the premises in dispute to the respondents. For this also, the evidence adduced by the petitioner is quite inconsistent. Both the authorities after referring to the statements of witnesses have found no merit in this contention either. This being the concurrent findings of the courts belows, does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this court.

The respondents by leading cogent and reliable evidence has proved on record that the property in dispute in fact was let out to their father by Munshi Ram, father of the petitioner and Sumer Chand. This way. the contention of the petitioner that Sukhdev Singh in fact let out this property to the respondents is also without any sound condition. This fact is otherwise also proved as there is no positive proof on record that rent at any time was received by Sukhdev Singh. In fact, as per Exhibit R-2, the rent was sent to Sumer Chand, real cousion of the petitioner and this also to some extent lands support to the contention of the respondents that petitioner''s cousin Sumer Chand and his father Munshi Ram who where in fact landlords who let out the premises in dispute to the respondents. Since there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, both the authorities below rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking eviction of the respondent. This revision-petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.