Prem Kumar, etc. vs Shiv Ram

J.V. Gupta, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 521 to 529 of 1985 as the question involved is common in all the cases.

One Bal Mukand was the original landlord of the, premises in dispute. He had taken on lease the land under death(sic) the premises from Zila Parishad, Gurdaspur, originally on December 29, 1952, for 10 years Lateron, the said period was being extended upto December 28, 1978. According to the terms of the lease deed, the Zila Parishad has permitted the lessee Balmukand to raise construction thereon and to sublet the same Ultimately, on October 18, 1978, Balmukand executed an agreement Ex. RW-2/A whereby he agreed that after the expiry of the lease period he will remove the material and hand over the vacant possession to the Zila Parishad, in case he fails to do so the Zila Parishad will take possession at such and in that situation the lessee will not be entitled to claim any price for the construction raised After the execution of the said agreement, Balmukand died. His heirs and legal representative filed the present application, for ejectment oh April 17, 1982, against the tenants alleging that they were in arrears of rent from September 1, 1978 to March 31, 1982, and therefore, they were liable to be ejected. In the written statement, the plea taken was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The lease in favour of Bal Mukand stood terminated on December 29, 1978, and was not renewed thereafter Bal Mukand died on March 31, 1979. After his death, the landlord did not inherit any right in the property in dispute. It was admitted that the premises in dispute were constructed by Bal Makand and were let out by him, but now these premites vested in the Zila Parishad, Gurdaspur, in whose favour the tenants had executed rent notes and were paying the rent regularly to the Zila Parishad.

The main controversy between the parties before the Rent Controller was as to whether there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Pent Controller came to the conclusion that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in respect of the building raised on the site Since no tender was made en the first date of bearing, eviction orders were passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that Bal Mukand after executing the agreement RW-2/A was left with no interest in the site or in the structure raised on the site in question and as such the landlords as heirs of Bal Mukand did not inherit the property in dispute. Thus it could not be said that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, In view of this finding, eviction orders were set aside Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed these petitions in this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that unless the tenants surrender their possession in favour of the landlords they could not be allowed to quash on the title in view of the provision of Section 16 of Indian Evidence Act. According to the learned Counsel, unless the tenants surrender the possession, the question of removing the Malba or the material could not arise. Thus argued the learned Counsel, the view taken by the Appellate Authority was erroneous. However the view taken by the Rent Controller in this behalf was correct. It was also contended that the Zila Parishad could not assume the possession of the premises in dispute by accepting the rent from the tenants unless the lease Bal Mukand was evicted from the premises in due course of law Unless Bal Mukand was evicted from the premises by the Zila Parishad, he continue to be the lessee on the land in dispute and was thus entitled to eject his tenant. In support of his contention, he referred to Nahar Singh v. Mohan Lal 1971 P. L. J. 328, Gajadhar Lodha Vs. Khas Mahatadih Colliery Co. and Others, and Mt. Bilas Kanwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh A. I. R. 1915 P. C 96.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant document Exhibit RW-2/A, I do not find any merit in these petitions As a matter of fact, the plea taken by the landlords before the Appellate Authority was that Bal Mukand never executed the said agreement Exhibit RW-2/A The plea taken was that he was not in his senses when he executed the said deed. It was conceded before the Appellate Authority on behalf of the landlords that they would have no case if the agreement Exhibit RW-2/A is proved to be genuine. Thus, on that basis the Appellate Authority found and observed as under:-

Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that lease deed Exhibit RW-2/A having been proved to be genuine and validity executed document Bal Mukand was left with no interest in the site or in the structures raised over the site in question and as such the landlords or heirs of Bal Mukand did not inherit right in the property in dispute So it cannot be said that there was any relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties and as such the tenants in my opinion are not liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute.

No arguments was raised on behalf of the Petitioners to challenge the said finding Whet was being contended was that the tenants cannot be allowed to dispute the title of the Petitioners in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. There could not be any dispute to the provision as such, but in the present case the original lessee Bal Mukand will be deemed to have surrendered his lease rights by executing the agreement Exhibit RW-2/A. It was on that account that he allowed the tenants to pay rant to the Zila Parishad from September 1, 1978 and never challenged the same during his life time. The present Petitioners who are his heirs and legal representatives filed the ejectment applications on April 17, 1982, i e after more than three years when the tenants has started paying rent to the Zila Parishad in view of the agreement executed by Bal Mukand dated October 19, 1978. That being so, the authorities relied upon have no applicability to the facts of the present case. On the facts of the present case, the lessee the tenants rightly started paying rent to the Zila Parishad from that time. In this view of the matter, I do net find any illegality on infirmity in the order of the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the petition fail and are dismissed with costs. However, the Petitioners will be at liberty to seek their remedy, if any, for getting compensation from the Zila Parishad for construction raised by Bal Mukand in the Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law.