Piare Lal vs Suresh Chand Gupta and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition against whom, an order of ejectment has been passed by both the Authorities below.

The landlord sought ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent, w.e.f. 1-12-1983 to 31-10-1985. According to the respondent (landlord), premises in dispute were let-out by Prabhu Dayal, their predecessor-in-interest, to the petitioner with effect from 1-3-1969 vide Rent note dated 6-3-1969. Initially, the premises in dispute was let out at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month, and at the time of filing of petition, the rent of the said premises was claimed to be Rs. 200/- per month.

The plea taken by the tenant in the written statement is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner. The tenant has also pleaded that rent-note was a sham transaction and was got executed from him in a clandestine manner by Prabhu Dayal; that Prabhu Dayal was never the landlord of the premises in dispute rather Prem Narain brother of Prabhu Dayal was the owner/landlord and the rent-note was got executed so as to make up a ground for ejectment. It was also pleaded that as a matter of fact, he never started any business in the premises in dispute, but the business was being carried on by his son Mangat Rai right from the inception of tenancy.

After framing issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the premises in dispute was let out by Prabhu Dayal to Piare Lal (petitioner herein) and he having failed to pay rent for the period claimed in the petition, is liable to be ejected.'' On appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller. The tenant has impugned the order''s of the Authorities below in this revision petition.

During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Application No. 143-CII of 1991 for bringing on record certain petition and written statement pertaining to subsequent litigation between the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that premises in dispute was owned by Prem Narain and he alone had let out the same to Mangat Rai, son of the petitioner, who is carrying on the business since the inception of tenancy. He also contended that the rent-note which the petitioner executed on 6-3-1969 is only a sham and paper transaction and was never acted upon.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that both the Courts after appreciation of entire evidence on record, have returned a finding of fact that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and the petitioner having failed to tender the rent, is liable to be ejected from the premises in dispute.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for in the findings recorded by the Authorities below.

Before settlement of issues, when the petitioner was examined on oath, he admitted his signatures on the counter-foil of the receipts, Exh. P-l/1 to P-38 as well as on rent-note, Exh. P-l. In view of this admission, burden laid heavily on the petitioner to prove the circumstances and the manner in which, rent-note and receipts were signed by him. Undisputedly, receipts related to different periods and rent-note was executed as far as back in the year 1969, whereas, the present ejectment application was filed only on 22-11-1985. There is no explanation by the petitioner as to why he kept silent for so many years after executing rent-note and made no grievance whatsoever even when he signed the receipts. There is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have no locus standi to file ejectment application claiming themselves to be landlords when they have failed to prove that they are owners of the property in dispute. It is not necessary that a person has to be owner in order to be landlord within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. A person claiming to be landlord may or may not be the legal owner of the property. Otherwise also, the premises having been taken on rent by the petitioner, he is estopped from challenging the title of his landlord. In the present case, the petitioner had been disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant. He refused to recognise Prabhu Dayal and thereafter on his death, respondents as landlords of the premises in dispute. The ejectment of the petitioner was sought only on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period 1-12-1983 to 31-10-1985. In order to save his ejectment, the petitioner could have tendered the rent to the respondent under protest and thereafter, could have disputed the relationship between him and the respondents. He having failed to take this minimum precaution of not tendering the rent on the first date of hearing, the respondents are certainly entitled to an order of ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent.

There is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that premises in dispute was taken on rent by Mangat Rai and he alone is carrying on the business right from the beginning. Mangat Rai is none else but the son of the petitioner. It is not uncommon where a father takes premises on rent and allows his son to carry on the business. Merely because Mangat Rai was carrying on the business is not sufficient to hold that he was the tenant in the demised premises particularly when rent-note, Exh, P-l and receipts, Exh. P-l/1 to P-38 bear the signatures of the petitioner.

As far as Civil Misc. Application No. 143-CII of 1991 for bringing on record certain documents is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that as to how they are relevant for the decision of the present case.

Resultantly, I find no merit in the revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed, but with no order as to costs. However, the petitioner is allowed two month''s time to vacate the premises in dispute provided he deposits the entire arrears of rent and files an undertaking in writing within one month, with the Rent Controller that he shall vacate the premises after the expiry of said two months.