Smt. Paramjit Kaur vs Smt. Satya Gupta and Others

R.S. Mongia, J.—One Shri H.S. Bagga had filed an ejectment application on April 19, 1988 u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against Smt. Paramjit Kaur - tenant (the present petitioner) for her ejectment from the premises in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent with effect from August, 1986 to April, 1987 at the rate of Rs. 1160/-per month and Rs. 1276/- per month from May, 1987 to the date of filing of the ejectment application. There were some other grounds also taken with which we are not concerned. During the pendency of the petition before the Rent Controller, the present respondents purchased the property in question vide registered sale-deed dated June 15, 1992. The vendees got themselves substituted in place of the original landlord and pursued the ejectment application. The Rent Controller vide its order dated April 15, 1994 found that the tenant (present petitioner) was in arrears of rent and, therefore, an order of ejectment was passed. The Appellate Authority upheld the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant on February 1, 1996. The tenant has come up in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following points :-

(i) In the sale deed dated June 15, 1992 (Ex.P.1) the vendor had not assigned the arrears of rent to the vendees and, therefore, in absence thereof, the vendees i.e. subsequent landlord, could not continue the ejectment petition on the ground of arrears of rent.

(ii) The Agreement to Sell dated 13.6.1992 between the vendor, H.S. Bagga, and the present respondents (Ex.P4) which is prior to the execution of the sale-deed and the assignment of arrears of rent or right to claim the arrears of rent in the agreement to sell cannot be read into the sale deed Ex.P1. If Ex.P4, the agreement to sell, can be taken to have assigned the right to claim the arrears of rent, the said document cannot be looked into because the same is unregistered. The said document required compulsory registration.

(iii) The tenancy between the original landlord and the tenant being for a fixed period of 6 years through a written deed, dated May 3, 1985 the present petitioner could not be ejected before the expiry of that period and the landlord can only recover the arrears of rent in due process of law and cannot file the ejectment petition on the ground of non-payment of rent.

(iv) The Rent Act was not applicable to the premises in question in which a Dharam Kanta had been installed later on and, therefore, the premises were exempt from the operation of Rent Act for a period of 10 years from the installation of Dharam Kanta.

In support of Point No. (i) learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there has to be assignment of right in the sale deed to recover the arrears of rent, if any, from the tenant and since there was no such assignment or a recital in the sale-deed Ex.P.1, the subsequent-landlord i.e. the vendees (respondents herein) could not continue with the ejectment petition filed by the original landlord. In support of her contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Hari Krishan by LRs. v. Smt. Krishna Mohini, (1990-2)98 P.1.R. 589, learned counsel for the respondents however, submitted that there was an assignment regarding the right to claim the arrears of rent etc. in the sale-deed Ex.P.1. He referred to certain lines in the sale deed, Ex.P.1, in which it is mentioned that out of the land, which was being sold through Ex.P1, certain area on which a Dharam Kant a has been installed, has been given on rent to Smt. Paramjit Kaur wife of Sh. Barjinder Pal Singh, resident of H.No. A-3/26, Janakpuri, New Delhi and further it is mentioned that "Jiski Babat Wasooli Wagera Ke Liye Mujhe Hak Hakuk The Kareta Ko Hassil Honge, Koi Ujjar Na Hoga.''

From the above lines learned counsel for the respondents argued that it was clearly mentioned that on some portion of the land that was being sold there was a tenant who had installed a Dharam Kanta and for realising the rent etc. for which the vendor had the right, the same would devolve or would stand assigned to the vendees. He further referred to Ex.P4, the agreement to sell, dated 13.6.1992, in which it is mentioned as under:-

"Yeh Ki Pratham Paksh Ne Dono Mukadmo Ukat Kiraya Biyaj Kharcha Babat Kachehri Me Dayar Karne Ke Baad Koi Kiraya Wasool Nahi Kiya aur Saare Huk Hakuk Dwitya Paksh Ke Huk Me Bil Ewaj Mublik 50,0001- (Pachaas Hazar Rupey) Jo Bajariya P.O.No. MPO/953/92, Dinank 10.6.1992, Dwara New Bank of India, New Delhi-65 Wasool Karke Chhor Diye He AB Se Pichhle Kiraye Ki Rashi Ko Wasool Karne Ka Huk Dwitya Paksh Ko Hoqa Jiske Liye Mai Usko Ek Mukhtiarnama Aam De Raha Hoon."

When translated, it means that after the filing of the two cases regarding the arrears, the vendor has not received any rent and whatever the arrears of rent are, the second party would have the right to realise the same and in lieu of that the first party had received Rs. 50,000/- from the vendees and the vendor has also given a general power of attorney in favour of the vendees for realising the arrears of rent etc. Learned counsel argued that for realising the arrears of rent etc. the vendees i.e. the respondents herein, had paid Rs. 50,000/- to the vendor and even he had executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the vendees. Learned counsel has showed me the original power of attorney, dated 13.6.1992, duly registered, and a photostat copy of the same has also been placed on the file. Learned counsel submitted that the recital in the sale deed clearly showed that there was an assignment to recover the arrears of rent in favour of the vendees and if there was any doubt in interpreting the same, reference could be made to the terms of agreement to sell, Ex.P4 (reference to which has been made above) to know the intention of the parties.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the recital in the sale deed, to which reference has already been made above, really assigned the right to realise the arrears of rent to the vendees and on that basis the vendees were substituted in place of landlord in the proceedings. Even if there is any doubt in interpreting the same, the intention of the parties to assign that right to the vendees can be gathered from the agreement to sell. In the agreement to sell it is mentioned that in lieu of the arrears of rent due from the tenant the vendor had been paid Rs. 50,000/- by the vendees and it has further been mentioned that the vendees have the right to realise the arrears of rent from the tenant. Even General Power of Attorney, duly registered, was given for the purpose by the vendor to the vendees. It is clear from the recital in the sale-deed that the intention was to assign the right to recover the arrears of rent to the vendees. It may also be observed here that this point was never raised in the Courts below.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this point.

Point No. (ii) :

So far as the question of the terms of agreement to sell are concerned, which, according to the learned counsel, cannot be read in the sale deed, I am of the view that there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

As observed above while dealing with the first point, the terms of agreement to sell are pointer to the intention of the parties to the sale deed as to what was being assigned to the vendees. It is very clear that the intention of the parties was that the vendees will have the right to recover the arrears of rent and even Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the vendees to the vendor in lieu of the arrears of rent, that may be found due from the tenant. It is not necessary to go into the point whether Ex.P.4, agreement to sell, required registration as arrears of rent were being assigned to the vendees. Though prima facie I am of the view that such a document needs no registration, yet since I have held that the sale-deed itself assigned right to recover the arrears of rent to the vendees and such a right is not being claimed by the vendees on the basis of Ex.P.4 i.e. the agreement to sell, the question as to the effect of its non-registration becomes meaningless.

So far as the third point is concerned, suffice it to say that even if there is lease deed for a fixed period, yet the grounds of ejectment which are available under a statute can be resorted to by the landlord. In this regard, a judgment of the Apex Court in Lakshmi Venkateshwara v. Syeda Vajhiunnissa 1994(12) H.R.R. 403 may be referred to. In that case it was held that where the landlord had granted lease of land to the tenant for 32 years and the tenant stopped paying the rent, the parties would be governed by the Rent Act and ejectment can be sought under the Rent Act on the ground of non-payment of rent.

Point No. (iv):

So far as point No. (iv) is concerned, suffice it to say that the ejectment sought for was from the land in question, which had been leased out to which the provisions of Rent Restriction Act would certainly apply. Simply because Dharamkanta was installed later on, the land would not make the Rent Act inapplicable for a period of 10 years from the installation of Dharamkanta. On ejectment, the tenant is always at liberty to remove everything installed by him on the premises which are let out to him.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed.