Krishan Mohan Madhok Vs. Surinder Mohan Aggarwal (D) by Lrs.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7214 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20073/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20073/2000)
Petitioner: Krishan Mohan Madhok
Respondent: Surinder Mohan Aggarwal (D) by Lrs.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 7214 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20073/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20073/2000)
Judges: V.N.KHARE & B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 16, 2001
Head Note:
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
Sections 13A, 18A(8) – Eviction – Owner seeking eviction – Ultimate finding by High Court that tenant was a tenant under someone else – Said finding becoming final as not challenged by any one – Later, owner filing petition on grounds of being retired government servant – High Court allowing the eviction petition as the landlord (the other person) herself stated that the claimant was owner. Held that the other person was only a rent collector and hence, landlord for limited purpose. When she herself has stated that claimant was owner and landlord, the High Court was justified in allowing the revision and directing eviction. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the tenant whereas respondent no. 1, who is dead, claimed himself to be the owner and landlord of premises bearing no. B-XIX-154/A situated at Rani Jhansi Road, Civil Lines Ludhiana. As far back in the year 1980, respondent no 1 filed a petition for eviction of the appellant herein before the rent controller. The eviction was sought on the ground that one Banarsi Dass, the main tenant, has sublet the premises to the appellant herein and, therefore, both are liable to be evicted. The rent controller allowed the petition which was affirmed in appeal. However, in the revision petition filed by the appellant, the High Court set aside the judgment of the appellate authority and it was held that the appellant is the main tenant of one Smt. Goma Mittal @ Oma Mittal who has been receiving rent from him. It is admitted that the said judgment attained finality. Subsequently, it was alleged that respondent no.1, who claimed to be the owner and landlord retired from government service in the year 1991 and, therefore, on 10.3.1992, he filed a petition under section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for eviction of the appellant on the ground that since he has retired from the government service, he requires the premises for his own bona fide need. The appellant filed a written statement wherein a plea was taken that Smt. Goma Mittal @ Oma Mittal is the landlord of the premises and the petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlord of the premises. The rent controller dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlord of the premises. The respondent thereafter filed a revision petition before the High Court under sub-section (8) of section 18-A of the Act. The High Court found that the order passed by the rent controller was not in accordance with law and, therefore, the order was set aside and the revision petition was allowed. Consequently, the petition for eviction filed by the landlord stood allowed. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the order and judgment passed by the High Court was without jurisdiction as, under sub-section (8) of section 18-A of the Act, it was not open to High Court to either indulge in the appreciation of evidence or interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the rent controller. We do not find any substance in the argument. The case of the appellant was that Smt. Goma Mittal @ Oma Mittal was the landlord. It was not pointed out by the appellant either in his written statement or in his evidence who is the owner of the premises. Smt. Goma Mittal appeared in the witness box and stated that Surinder Mohan Aggarwal, respondent no. 1 herein, is the owner and landlord of the premises. In revision petition no. 1196/1986 which was decided on 19.5.1989, the High Court held thus:
“The petitioner has led prima facie evidence that he was inducted as tenant by Smt. Goma @ Oma Mittal and that he paid rent to her through a cheque drawn in the name of her son. Smt. Goma @ Oma Mittal may not be the owner, but she could be the landlord. A landlord may not necessarily be the owner. Any person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of any building on his own account or on behalf, or for the benefit of any other person, is a landlord. Smt. Goma is not a stranger to the family. Smt. Goma may be managing the property and in her capacity as such, rented out the same.”
4. The aforesaid finding shows that Goma @ Oma Mittal was not the owner of the premises but was landlord for limited purpose of renting out the premises to the tenant and also for collecting the rent. Once Smt. Goma Mittal appeared in the witness box and stated that it is the respondent who is the owner of the premises and also the landlord as she is no longer authorised by the respondent to collect rent, in the absence of any evidence contrary to it, only conclusion which could legitimately be drawn was that the respondent is the owner and landlord of the premises. The order and judgment passed by the rent controller was perverse and contrary to evidence on record and, therefore, the High Court was justified in allowing the revision petition.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the tenant whereas respondent no. 1, who is dead, claimed himself to be the owner and landlord of premises bearing no. B-XIX-154/A situated at Rani Jhansi Road, Civil Lines Ludhiana. As far back in the year 1980, respondent no 1 filed a petition for eviction of the appellant herein before the rent controller. The eviction was sought on the ground that one Banarsi Dass, the main tenant, has sublet the premises to the appellant herein and, therefore, both are liable to be evicted. The rent controller allowed the petition which was affirmed in appeal. However, in the revision petition filed by the appellant, the High Court set aside the judgment of the appellate authority and it was held that the appellant is the main tenant of one Smt. Goma Mittal @ Oma Mittal who has been receiving rent from him. It is admitted that the said judgment attained finality. Subsequently, it was alleged that respondent no.1, who claimed to be the owner and landlord retired from government service in the year 1991 and, therefore, on 10.3.1992, he filed a petition under section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for eviction of the appellant on the ground that since he has retired from the government service, he requires the premises for his own bona fide need. The appellant filed a written statement wherein a plea was taken that Smt. Goma Mittal @ Oma Mittal is the landlord of the premises and the petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlord of the premises. The rent controller dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlord of the premises. The respondent thereafter filed a revision petition before the High Court under sub-section (8) of section 18-A of the Act. The High Court found that the order passed by the rent controller was not in accordance with law and, therefore, the order was set aside and the revision petition was allowed. Consequently, the petition for eviction filed by the landlord stood allowed. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the order and judgment passed by the High Court was without jurisdiction as, under sub-section (8) of section 18-A of the Act, it was not open to High Court to either indulge in the appreciation of evidence or interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the rent controller. We do not find any substance in the argument. The case of the appellant was that Smt. Goma Mittal @ Oma Mittal was the landlord. It was not pointed out by the appellant either in his written statement or in his evidence who is the owner of the premises. Smt. Goma Mittal appeared in the witness box and stated that Surinder Mohan Aggarwal, respondent no. 1 herein, is the owner and landlord of the premises. In revision petition no. 1196/1986 which was decided on 19.5.1989, the High Court held thus:
“The petitioner has led prima facie evidence that he was inducted as tenant by Smt. Goma @ Oma Mittal and that he paid rent to her through a cheque drawn in the name of her son. Smt. Goma @ Oma Mittal may not be the owner, but she could be the landlord. A landlord may not necessarily be the owner. Any person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of any building on his own account or on behalf, or for the benefit of any other person, is a landlord. Smt. Goma is not a stranger to the family. Smt. Goma may be managing the property and in her capacity as such, rented out the same.”
4. The aforesaid finding shows that Goma @ Oma Mittal was not the owner of the premises but was landlord for limited purpose of renting out the premises to the tenant and also for collecting the rent. Once Smt. Goma Mittal appeared in the witness box and stated that it is the respondent who is the owner of the premises and also the landlord as she is no longer authorised by the respondent to collect rent, in the absence of any evidence contrary to it, only conclusion which could legitimately be drawn was that the respondent is the owner and landlord of the premises. The order and judgment passed by the rent controller was perverse and contrary to evidence on record and, therefore, the High Court was justified in allowing the revision petition.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
