Sardar Jit Singh alias Jeet Singh vs Narender Kumar and Others

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Bhiwani, dated 15.12.1997 and that of the learned Appellate Authority, Bhiwani, dated 6.8.1998. The learned Rent Controller had passed the order of eviction. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. This led the petitioner to file the present revision petition.

The relevant facts are that the respondent Narender Kumar had filed ejectment application against the petitioner with respect to the shop in dispute. It had been asserted that Ram Chander, father of the respondent Narender Kumar, had let the shop to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- excluding taxes. When Ram Chander died on 18.4.1984, the respondent was 11 years old and was a minor. After the death of the father of the respondent, he along with his mother, his brothers and sisters became the landlord. The respondent was seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not paid the arrears of rent from 1.9.1998 to 31.10.1991 and further that the respondent was a minor at the time his father had died. He requires the property in dispute for his personal use because he has no other shop for his business which he intends to set up. The respondent was stated to be doing private service with M/s Lalit Cut-piece Stores, Bhiwani. The respondent intends to do cloth business in retail in the suit premises.

The petitioner contested the eviction application and took up the plea that the agreed rent is only Rs. 110/- per month He denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was further asserted that respondent Narender Kumar is not the son of Ram Chander. A contention was raised that the respondent does not require the demised property for doing any business and in any case he was not a minor when his father died.

The learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on the ground that the property in dispute is required for his own personal use and for doing business. The said order, as already pointed above, was upheld by the learned Appellate Authority. It was held that respondent Narender Kumar is the son of Ram Chander and was a minor when Ram Chander died. The ground regarding non payment of rent does not survive for the purposes of the present revision petition and, therefore, it becomes unnecessary to mention the facts pertaining to it.

The First and the foremost question agitated was as to if respondent No. 1, Narender Kumar was the son of Ram Chander or not? Admittedly, Ram Chander was earlier the landlord of the property vis-a-vis the petitioner. There is no controversy that Ram Chander died on 18.4.1984. The mother of Narender Kumar, Smt. Tulsi Devi, had appeared as a witness and has deposed that Narender Kumar is their son. Not only that, other evidence on the record also establishes the same fact. Exhibit P-2 is the mark-sheet of the matriculation examination which establishes that Narender Kumar has been shown to be the son of Ram Chander. His date of birth was recorded as 25.8.1973. Exhibit P-10 was the certificate vide which Narender Kumar had passed the Senior Secondary Examination. Herein, he is also recorded as the son of Ram Chander. Exhibit P-12 was proved as copy of the ration card wherein same fact has been established. The petitioner appeared as his own witness and during cross-examination denied the knowledge as to whether Narender Kumar is the son of Ram Chander or not. The totality of the facts clearly reveals and it is established that respondent No. 1 Narender Kumar is the son of Ram Chander.

During the course of arguments, yet another argument attempted to be advanced was that it was Smt. Tulsi Devi who was the landlord and not Ram Chander. Tulsi Devi is the widow of Ram Chander. She has herself appeared as a witness and testified that Ram Chander was the landlord of the property. There is hardly any material to show that Smt. Tulsi Devi had let the property. Ram Chander had filed an affidavit Exhibit PW3/A. It was executed in the year 1984 before the present litigation was contemplated. He specifically sworn therein that petitioner is one of the tenant in the property. Furthermore, Exhibit P-5 is the copy of assessment register of the Municipal Committee for the year 1979-80. Exhibit P-6 is the copy of assessment register for the year 1984-85 which shows that Ram Chander has been shown to be the owner whereas Jit Singh petitioner as tenant under Ram Chander. These factors clearly establish that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between Ram Chander and the petitioner.

It transpired in evidence that respondent No. 1 Narender Kumar was a minor at the time of the death of his father and he intends to start his own business in the property in question. In this regard, the ground of eviction has been taken u/s 13(3A) of the Haryana Urban (Control) of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short "the Act"). The said ground reads as under: -

"(3A) In the case of a non-residential building, a landlord who stands retired or discharged from the armed forces of the Union of India or who was a minor son at the time of death of the deceased landlord, and requires it for his personal use, may within a period of three years from the date of retirement or discharge or attaining the age of eighteen years, as the case may be, apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession:

Provided that where the landlord has obtained possession of a non-residential building under this Sub-section, he shall not be entitled to apply again for the possession of any other non-residential building of the same class."

Taking advantage of the said provision, the learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that Ram Chander deceased is not shown to be in the armed forces and, therefore, his son cannot take advantage of the said provision. The argument so advanced, in fact, is totally misconceived. The plain language of Section 13(3A) of the Act shows that advantage of the said provision can be taken if the landlord has retired or discharged from the armed forces. At the same time, if at the time of the death of the landlord, his son is a minor, the said ground can also be taken advantage of. It is not connected with the earlier part that the landlord should be retired or discharged from the armed forces. The latter part gives the benefit to the son of the deceased landlord if on attaining the age of majority he seeks eviction of the tenant and shows that the he requires the property for his own personal use.

Similar controversy arose in the case of Himmat Ram v. Smt. Jamna Bai and Ors., AIR 1983 PH 152. The argument as such was repelled by this Court holding as under: -

"There is absolutely no ambiguity in the language employed in Section 13(3A) of the Act, which clearly states that it applies to two distinct categories of persons, viz. (i) a landlord who stands retired or discharged from the Armed Forces of the Union of India, and (ii) a person who was a minor son at the time of the death of his father, the deceased landlord. It is also clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons, as reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment. Apart from that, it does not stand to reason why after the provision, "a landlord who stands retired or discharged from the Armed Forces of the Union of India" who can apply for the ejectment of a tenant from the non-residential building, the further provision "or who was a minor son at the time of the death of the deceased landlord", is also to be read along with that. As a matter of fact, in case of a non-residential building, a landlord who stands retired or discharged from the Armed Forces of the Union of India and requires the premises for his personal use, is a separate category by itself, and a person who was a minor son at the time of the death of the deceased landlord and requires the premises for his personal use, constitutes another separate category, u/s 13(3A) of the Act. Besides, as regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this provision is applicable to the case of a landlord who has left behind one minor son only who can seek the eviction of a tenant thereunder, the same is wholly fallacious and has to be rejected. It is well established that under the General Clauses Act, singular includes plural. Moreover, the benefit thereunder has been given to the persons specified therein seeking eviction of the tenants only in case they prove that the demised premises are required by them for their personal use. It has been concurrently found as a fact by both the authorities below that Vijay Kumar, landlord, who was a minor at the time of the death of his father Atma Chand, does require the premises, in dispute, for his personal use. This is a finding of fact based on the appreciation of evidence and I do not find any illegality or infirmity therein as to be interfered with in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction."

Same view prevailed with this Court in the case of Tirlok Chand and Anr. v. Raj Kumar, 1987 Haryana Rent Reporter, 425. Keeping in view the above said dicta and the reasoning given above, this plea being without merit must fail.

It has transpired in evidence and has been found as of fact that respondent No. 1 Narender Kumar who was a minor at the time of the death of his father intends to start his retail business in the suit premises. Presently, he is working in a shop. There is no mala fide established. The concurrent findings of fact based on evidence requires no interference. Therefore, both the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had rightly passed the impugned order. Thus, there is no ground to interfere.

For these reasons, the revision petition fails and is consequently dismissed. The petitioner is granted two months time to vacate the property.