Sant Lal vs Smt. Prem Chandel

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This revision petition is against the order of the appellate authority allowing the respondent''s application for adducing additional evidence.

The respondent filed an application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ''the Act'') for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute on the ground of non payment of rent.

The petitioner-tenant put in appearance, filed written statement and took up the plea that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the rent petition is not maintainable. On merit, it was stated that the respondent is neither the owner nor the landlord of the demised premises. Even the rate of rent was disputed and it was stated that the premises in dispute was, in fact, meant for economically weaker section for which monthly instalment payable to Chandigarh Housing Board is Rs. 70/- per month and so the rate of rent is Rs. 70/- per month.

The Rent Controller framed three issues i.e. existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; maintainability of the petition; and the effect of non payment of rent as claimed by the landlord. The Rent Controller decided issues No. 1 and 3 together and held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and so the question of payment of rent does not arise. Issue No.2 was also decided against the landlord.

Before the appellate Court, the landlady filed an application to adduce additional evidence to prove her ownership as well as to adduce further evidence with regard to the alleged rent note executed by the tenant in her favour. This application was accepted by the appellate authority vide order dated 4.10.1995. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner terming it to be wholly illegal and void.

Challenging the validity of the order, counsel for the petitioner argued that the so called rent note has already been adduced in evidence and so the present attempt to lead further evidence in respect of this document to is nothing but an attempt to fill in the lacuna which is not envisaged by Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This document was in the possession of the respondent and so could lead all possible evidence to prove the contents now sought to be raised. Even the respondent''s plea that she be permitted to prove her ownership is also wholly unwarranted in the circumstances of the case. The Act envisages determination of dispute between the landlord and tenant and no further. Thus, even if the respondent is owner, though not accepted, such a finding will not bring her within the definition of landlady and so the permission granted by the appellate authority is unsustainable in law.

Justifying the impugned order, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the appellate authority has ample power to grant such a prayer in terms of Section 15(3) of the Act and hence reference to Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC by the counsel for the petitioner was wholly misplaced. The power conferred upon the appellate authority u/s 15(3) of the Act is without any Limitation i.e. in case the appellate authority is of the view that any further inquiry is essential, it can do personally or through the Controller. Examined in the light of this statutory provisions, the prayer granted is just and appropriate in the circumstances of the case. To support his contention, reliance was placed upon the decision in case reported as Mohanlal Meganlal Vs. Savitaben and Another, and Bachan Singh and Ors. v. Amar Singh and Ors. 1978(1) R.C.R. 161.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the Rent Controller as well as the impugned order passed by the appellate authority. A perusal of the order of the Rent Control reveals that the tenant in his written statement has specifically challenged the locus standi of the respondent-landlady to file such a petition i.e. denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or he having been ever inducted as a tenant by the landlady. Even the rate of rent and the mode of payment was also challenged. In the light of the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed issues and permitted the parties to adduce evidence. As discussed in the order of the Rent Controller, the landlady adduced evidence to prove the rent note Exhibit PW 3/A and so examined Sh. B.R. Sharma, an attesting witness of the rent note. The other witness to this rent note was, however, examined by the tenant-petitioner. After weighing the evidence led by the parties in respect of the rent note, Rent Controller came to the conclusion that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and hence the question of payment of rent does not arise. Thus, there is no doubt that the rent note, the basis of the petition, has been adduced in evidence. What precisely is the value of this document is again to be reassessed by the appellate authority. Both the witnesses to this document, namely, Sarv Sh. B.R. Sharma and Vir Sain Solanki have come and deposed and so the document stands formally proved. What is the value of a document stands formally proved. What is the value of a document is a matter which the appellate authority is yet to adjudicate. The evidence adduced so far cannot be said to be deficient in evaluating the document or the value of the deposition of the witnesses. Thus, this is nothing but an exercise to fill up some lacuna in the case. Similarly, no useful purpose is to be served even if the landlady succeeds in proving her ownership or prove that she has constructed one room etc. Both these matters are extraneous to the matter under enquiry. The landlord who seeks to evict his tenant is to apply to the Rent Controller for a direction in this behalf i.e. relationship of landlord and tenant is to be determined in terms of Section 13 of the Act. Section 2(3) of the Act defines the landlord to be any person who for the time being is entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his owner or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person and includes a tenant who sub-lets a building or a rented land in a manner authorised and every other person from time to time who drives a title under a landlord. Thus, there is no manner of doubt that it is only a landlord who can maintain a petition for eviction of the tenant and none else and so even if she is owner (though not accepted) and not a landlady the same will not clothe her with a right to evict her tenant. Since there is ample evidence on record to decide the matter completely and effectively, the prayer made by the respondent and granted by the Court is nothing but an attempt to fill in the lacuna in the evidence already adduced.

Accordingly, I accept the revision petition, set aside the order of the appellate authority. Any observation made by this Court with a view to evaluate the contention raised is not to be construed by the appellate authority as an expression of opinion on a particular matter, who, of course, will examine the matter independently of the same.