Sanjay vs Sunil And Ors

The matter comes up on an application preferred on behalf of the petitioner for preponement of the date of hearing.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard at this stage.

This writ petition is directed against order dated 30.10.15 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaiupr, whereby an appeal preferred by the respondents against the order dated 5.2.15 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Rent Case No.115/14, has been allowed. The Appellate Rent Tribunal after framing additional issues, having arrived at the finding that there exists no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties, has reversed the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal, directing eviction of the respondents from the disputed premises.

The facts relevant are that the petitioner filed a petition before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, seeking eviction of the respondent from a residential premises on the grounds of default in payment of rent and reasonable & bona fide requirement. The petition was contested by the respondents taking the stand that the premises was taken on rent by their father Shri Kanhaiyalal from the grand father of the petitioner in the year 1962. The respondents denied the landlord and tenant relationship with the petitioner herein and claimed that before the year 2000, the petitioner's uncle Balmukund, Lalit, Narendra and Bhagwatilal, any of them, was receiving the rent.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed following issue:

"1. आया प्रत्यर्थीगण ने किराया अदायगी में चार माह से अधिक की अवधि का व्यतिक्रम कारित किया है ? - प्रार्थी

आया प्रार्थी को वादग्रस्त परिसर की स्वयं का व्यवसाय करने हेतु युक्तियुक्त एव ं सद्भाविक आवष्यकता है ? - प्राथी

आया प्रत्यर्थी ने प्रार्थी को मकान मालिक मानने से इन्कार किया है, यदि हॉ तो इसका प्रभाव ? - प्राथी

आया प्रार्थी, प्रत्यर्थीगण से ज ून, 2006 से 3000/- प्रतिमाह की दर से दिसम्बर 2007 तक 57000/- रूपय े किराया प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ? - प्राथी

अनुतोष ?"

The Rent Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Accordingly, the petition filed seeking eviction as also for recovery of rent was allowed vide order dated 5.2.15. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The Appellate Rent Tribunal while deciding the appeal, framed following issues:

"1. आया अर्जीदार व अपीलार्थी के मध्य भूस्वामी व किरायेदार के सम्बन्ध है ?

आया अपीलार्थी ने किराया अदायगी में व्यतिक्रम किया है?"

The Appellate Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding that the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties is not established and accordingly, the appeal preferred has been allowed and the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal has been set aside as aforesaid. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Appellate Rent Tribunal while deciding the issue regarding the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties, has neither cared to look into the pleadings of the parties nor appreciated the evidence on record in correct perspective. Admittedly, the premises in question was let out by the petitioner's grand father to the father of the respondents and thus, the petitioner being a coparcener, a right over the premises had accrued to him by inheritance. Learned counsel submitted that apart from the fact that the petitioner was receiving the rent from the respondents and thus, was landlord in terms of provisions of Section 2 (c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act of 2001"), being co-owner of the property, was entitled to maintain the petition seeking eviction within his own right and thus, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in deciding the issue regarding landlord and tenant relationship against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has completely ignored the fact that the property was joint property and every co-sharer is joint owner of every inch of unpartitioned property and thus, the respondents could not have denied the landlord and tenant relationship. Learned counsel drawing the attention of this court to the document produced, submitted that the petitioner was receiving the rent from the respondents and thus, even otherwise being landlord within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Act of 2001, he was entitled to seek eviction of the respondents from the disputed premises.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents reiterating the stand taken before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, submitted that the petitioner never acquired ownership of the disputed premises and since, the petitioner was never authorised by his father or his uncle to receive the rent, he cannot be considered to be landlord of the premises in question. Learned counsel submitted that the findings arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal after due consideration of the evidence on record cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

Indisputably, the disputed premises was let out to the respondents' father by the petitioner's grand father Shri Kanhaiyalal. Obviously, after the death of Shri Kanhaiyalal, the petitioner being a co-parcener, became co-owner of the property in question. That apart, it has come on record that the payment of the rent of the premises was made to the petitioner by the respondents by issuing cheques in his name. Though, the respondents denied the factum of the cheques being issued towards the arrear of the rent and claimed that the same were issued for the purpose of digging the tubewell, but no evidence whatsoever was bought on record to establish that any such transaction was entered into between the parties.

It is noticed that as per the definition of 'landlord', set out in Section 2(c) of the Act, landlord is the person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let out to a tenant. But then, the natural landlord of the premises is ordinarily the owner and he is entitled to receive the rent of the premises. Thus, the petitioner being the co-owner of the disputed premises was well within his right to file the petition seeking eviction against the respondents. In this regard, the reliance may be placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Rishabh Chand Bhandari (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. vs. National Engineering Industry Limited", 2009 (10) SCC, 601, wherein while considering the provisions of Section 3 (iii) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which is pari materia to the provisions of Section 2 (c ) of the Act of 2001, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"7. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rent statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word "landlord", who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Madan Lal v. Hazara Singh. We approve of the view taken in the said decision."

In view of the discussion above, the petitioner as co-owner of the disputed premises as also the person receiving the rent of the premises falls within the definition of "landlord" set out in Section 2(c) of the Act of 2001.

For the aforementioned reasons, the findings arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal regarding the absence of landlord and tenant relationship between the parties is ex facie capricious, perverse and contrary to law.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 30.10.15 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Appeal No.14/15 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Rent Tribunal for decision of the appeal afresh, after examining the correctness of the finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal on remaining issues. The parties shall appear before the Appellate Rent Tribunal on 9.9.19.

No order as to costs.