SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.
SURINDER PAL KAUR AND ANOTHER – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SATPAL AND ANOTHER – RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal No. 345 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P (C) No. 3989 of 2014)
Decided on : 13-01-2015
(2004) 1 SCC 438 – Relied upon
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1963 – Section 13 – Suit for eviction – High Court interfering relying on proceedings under section 145 CrPC – Proceedings not relating to relationship of landlord and tenant – Respondent in possession – Not depositing rent – High Court dismissing revision merely on ground that the property was under attachment at the time of filing the eviction suit – Not tenable. (Para 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
Rana Shiv Gopal Singh and Rani Amarjeet Kaur filed petition for ejectment of Krishan Lal from the premises in question. After death of Rana Shiv Gopal Singh and Rani Amarjeet Kaur, present appellants were substituted as their legal heirs in the proceedings, and after death of Krishan Lal, present respondents were impleaded as his legal representatives.
The Rent Controller accepted the case of the appellants and allowed the application for ejectment of the respondents.
The Appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller.
On reversal of the order passed by the Rent Controller, the appellants challenged the order of the appellate authority in revision before the High Court which was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed. Matter remitted.
JUDGMENT
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 7.5.2013, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No. 5330 of 2002 (O&M) whereby said Court has dismissed the revision.
3. Briefly stated, the factual matrix of the case is that Rana Shiv Gopal Singh and Rani Amarjeet Kaur filed petition under Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1963 (Act 11 of 1973) for ejectment of Krishan Lal from the premises in question, i.e. House No. 8603-5, New No. 542, Block No. 6, Ambala City. After death of Rana Shiv Gopal Singh and Rani Amarjeet Kaur, present appellants were substituted as their legal heirs in the proceedings, and after death of Krishan Lal, present respondents were impleaded as his legal representatives.
4. It is pleaded by the appellants that they are landlords of House No. 8603-5, New No. 452, Block No. 6, Ambala City, and respondents are their tenants. The monthly tenancy started from the first date of every Calendar month, and the rate of rent was Rs. 70/- per month. It is alleged in the petition that the tenants failed to make payment of rent with effect from 1.6.1987, and committed default for 25 months. On the ground of default in payment of rent the petition for ejectment was filed in April, 1990 before the Rent Controller, Ambala City.
5. A written statement was filed by the original tenant Krishan Lal before the Rent Controller, disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is pleaded in the written statement that answering respondent was tenant of Deity Shivji and, as such, the appellants have no right, title and interest in the property. It is further pleaded that in the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), Tehsildar, Ambala, was appointed as Receiver. It is stated that the answering respondents have no liability to pay any sum to the appellants.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed following issues: -
(i) Whether the respondent is liable for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent?
(ii) Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form?
(iii) Whether the petitioners have got no locus standi to file the petition as they are neither owners nor landlord of the respondent?
7. The Rent Controller, after recording evidence and hearing the parties, accepted the case of the appellants and allowed the application for ejectment of the respondents vide his order dated 22.11.1995 Aggrieved by said order, the respondents filed Rent Appeal No. 55 of 1996 before the Appellate Authority. Said authority observed that Rana Shiv Gopal Singh was an employee of management committee of a temple of Murti Shivji. After his removal from the post of Manager, he had no right and authority to collect the rent from the respondents. The appellate authority further took note of the fact that Tehsildar, Ambala, was appointed as Receiver of the property on 21.11.1988 in proceedings under Section 145 CrPC. It is further observed by said authority that Lala Fakir Chand, President of the Committee (Sabha) of Temple was handed over the premises after the attachment was withdrawn. However, the appellate authority did find that rent receipts were issued by Rana Shiv Gopal Singh and Rani Amarjeet Kaur to the respondents but it held that the same were issued by the appellants in the capacity of office bearers of the Management Committee of the temple, as such they cannot maintain the petition under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for eviction of the respondents as the same is not filed in the capacity of office bearers of the Management Committee of the temple. For the above reasons, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller.
8. On reversal of the order passed by the Rent Controller, the appellants challenged the order of the appellate authority in revision before the High
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.