Sardarilal vs Gajanand

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—1. The appellant/plaintiff, Sardarilal S/o Sh. Balaram, has filed the present first appeal under Section 96 of CPC, 1908, aggrieved by rejection of his eviction suit filed for seeking eviction of the defendant/tenant, namely, Gajanand S/o Sh. Manoharlal, from the suit premises and recovery of due rent of Rs. 31,500/- in respect of suit property, a residential house, situated at BF-25, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar.

The suit came to be dismissed by the learned court of Addl. District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, vide its judgment and decree dated 27.09.2005 on the ground that the plaintiff/appellant has failed to establish the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. The issue about default in payment of rent was thus not decided but another grounds for eviction, viz. bonafide need of the suit property for the plaintiff and his family members was decided against the appellant/plaintiff. The relevant findings of the learned trial court are quoted herein below for ready reference: -

Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi, appearing for the appellant/plaintiff/landlord urged that the suit property in question was originally allotted by U.I.T., Sri Ganganagar, in favour of one Jawaharlal S/o Sh. Chandiram vide (Ex. 10), which was later on transferred to one Mahendra S/o Gurbachan Singh vide Exhibit-A/4 under an Agreement to Sell and the said Mahendra in turn executed another Agreement to Sell in favour of defendant, Gajanand S/o Manoharlal. On 31.08.2001 the defendant, Gajanand, executed yet another Agreement to Sell in favour of plaintiff/appellant, Sardarilal S/o Balaram for Rs. 5,00,000/- and a written agreement (Ex. 5) was executed, and the said suit property, which is a residential house, was sought to be transferred to the plaintiff/appellant but the parties agreed that the possession of the suit property be kept by the defendant, Gajanand, as tenant on the agreed monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/- for which rent was paid vide Rent Receipts (Exhibits 2 to 5). Besides execution of the Agreement to Sell executed by the defendant, Gajanand in favour of Sardarilal, 4 (four) rent receipts vide Exhibits- 2 to 5 showing payment of Rs. 3500/- as monthly rent were produced by the plaintiff in support of his averments in the plaint that there was relationship of landlord-tenant between these parties qua the suit property. The defendant/respondent, Gajanand, however, denied the said relationship and claimed himself to be the owner of the suit property. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned Senior Advocate, therefore, urged that even though the question of title was not relevant in the proceedings of eviction suit, however, the learned trial court has denied the eviction only on the ground of bald denial of such relationship by the defendant/tenant and existence of said Rent Receipts and Agreement to Sell executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff, Sardarilal. He, therefore, prayed that the present first appeal of landlord deserves to be allowed and eviction decree deserves to be granted in favour of landlord.

On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant/tenant submitted that the said Rent Receipts (Exhibits 2 to 5) and Agreement were denied by the defendant and the said Rent Receipts were in fact misused on certain blank papers signed by the defendant, Gajanand, in connection with certain on going business dispute between the parties. He also submitted that after the original allotment of plot of land/residential house in favour of Jawaharlal by the U.I.T, Sri Ganganagar, none of the parties have the registered sale-deed in their favour and from the statements read before this Court of PW.1, namely, Sardarilal and PW.2, namely, Shyamlal S/o Sardarilal, he sought to make out that the plaintiff was not aware of the existence of such Agreement between the parties or the Rent Receipts given by him and signed by defendant also. He, therefore, submitted that the plaintiff has failed to prove these documents in support of his claim of landlord/tenant relationship and thus, the refusal for eviction by the court below is justified and the present first appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the present first appeal of the plaintiff/appellant/landlord deserves to be allowed. The reasons for the same are as follows.

It is well settled that question of title is not relevant to be decided in the rent control and eviction cases and this proposition of law is not even disputed by the learned counsel for the defendant/tenant and rightly so. It is true that the plaintiff has not claimed to be owner of the said property, in the sense that he has the same by virtue of a registered sale-deed in his favour. But, he has definitely relied on the Agreement to Sell (Ex. 1) executed by the defendant, Gajanang and in his wife, Smt. Santosh Devi, in favour of plaintiff on 31.08.2001 for Rs. 5,00,000/- and in the Agreement, the fact of possession of suit property given to buyer is also mentioned. Thereafter for four months, Exhibits 2 to 5 rent receipts were given by the plaintiff, Sardarilal, showing payment of rent by the defendant, Gajanand, himself. These documents signed by both the parties, are sought to be brushed aside by the defendant under the garb of some alleged business dispute, the details and evidence whereof has not been placed on record of the trial court and the same is a mere eyewash. Having executed an Agreement to Sell in favour of plaintiff/appellant, Sardarilal, on a stamp paper bearing signatures of the two witnesses also and thereafter having paid the rent for four months vide Exhibits-2 to 5, the denial of such relationship by the defendant/tenant is nothing, but a false plea taken by him. This Court is satisfied that on the basis of aforesaid evidence on record that relationship of landlord-tenant was duly established and proved by the plaintiff.

The reasons assigned by the learned trial court not finding the bonafide and personal need of the plaintiff/appellant in respect of suit property are also not sustainable. The learned trial court has clearly substituted its own opinion about the living pattern of family members of the plaintiff/landlord, which it was not entitled to do. The settled legal position is that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and neither the defendant/tenant can dictate terms in this regard nor the court can substitute its own opinion over the opinion of the landlord. Thus, on both the grounds, namely, denial of title by the defendant/tenant as well as default in payment of rent and bonafide need of the landlord, the judgment under appeal deserves to be reversed and the first appeal of the appellant/plaintiff/landlord deserves to be allowed, the same is accordingly, allowed, with cost of Rs. 10,000/-, to be paid by the defendant/tenant to the plaintiff within a period of three months from today. The judgment and decree of the court below is set aside.

The respondent/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/appellant within a period of six months from today i.e. on or before 31.07.2016 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 5,000/- per month commencing from January, 2016 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/appellant, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The respondent/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent @ Rs. 3500/- per month for the entire period up to December, 2015 beginning after the months for which rent was paid under Ex. 2 to 5, Rent Receipts, viz. January, 2002 to December, 2015, costs imposed and mesne profits and pay the same to the plaintiff/appellant, within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The respondent/defendant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit premises or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiffs/appellants on or before 31.07.2016 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/appellant or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.