PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar, J.
Gurinder Singh
Versus
Kundan Lal
Civil Revision No. 5532 of 2004,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 18, 2004
Rent and Eviction - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 - Sections 13(2)(i), 13(3)(a)(iv), 15(6)
Fact of the Case:
The tenant-petitioners were found to be in arrears of rent and had purchased their own house, leading to their liability for eviction under Sections 13(2)(i) and 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act. The courts below also concluded the relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the findings of the lower courts, stating that the landlord-respondent was the owner of the tenanted premises and that the tenant-petitioners failed to prove otherwise. The court also emphasized the importance of evidence and the onus of proof on the tenant-petitioners.
Issues: The issues revolved around the arrears of rent, ownership of the tenanted premises, and the relationship between the landlord and tenants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the overwhelming evidence supporting the landlord-respondent's ownership and the failure of the tenant-petitioners to discharge the onus of proving otherwise.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' findings and concluding that the tenant-petitioners were liable for eviction.
M.M.Kumar, J.
1. This petition filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, the Act) is directed against the judgment passed by both the Courts below directing ejectment of the tenant- petitioners from the demised premises. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the tenant-petitioners are in arrears of rent and that they have also purchased their own house. Therefore, they are liable to be ejected on those counts under Sections 13(2)(i) and 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act respectively. The findings of the Appellate Authority are available in paragraph 13 of the judgment with regard to arrears of rent and the same reads as under:
"No doubt, the respondent has stated that the rent has already been paid upto October, 1996 but no receipt was given by Phiraya Lal, father of Kundan Lal. The onus to prove payment of rent was heavy upon the tenant who has alleged also evident that the said Kuldeep Kaur sold the property vide Ex.P.3 on 5.4.1995. Therefore, from Ex.P.2 and P.3 the learned Rent Controller has rightly observed that Kuldip Kaur had acquired the property which was sufficient for her accommodation and as such in view of provisions of Section 3(a)(iv) of the Act the learned Rent Controller has rightly ordered the eviction of the respondent-tenant from the rented premises."
2. Both the Courts below have also concluded that there is relationship of tenant and. landlord between Kundan Lal landlord-respondent and the tenant-petitioners. Overwhelming evidence has been discussed in paragraph 11 by the Appellate Authority showing that Kundan Lal has been the owner and landlord of the demised premises. The findings of the Rent Controller in that regard has also been upheld. The findings of the Appellate Authority based on the analysis of evidence read as under:
"..,. After going through Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.17 and in view of the admission by the witnesses of respondent now appellant, it has to be held that Kundan Lal petitioner is undoubtedly landlord/owner of the tenanted premises and as such it has to be held that respondent-appellant has failed to prove that Kundan Lal was not their landlord. Therefore, it has to be held that petitioner Kundan Lal is the owner- cum-landlord of the tenanted premises and the respondent appellants arc tenants under him and as such the learned Rent Controller has rightly come to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and thus the findings on issue No. 6 are hereby affirmed."
3. Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioners has argued that the findings with regard to relationship of the landlord and tenant suffer from inherent inconsistency because the entries of the house tax assessment register of the year 1983-84 Ex.R.l and Rule 2 relied upon by the tenant-petitioners categorically show that it was Phiraya Lal, the father of the petitioner who was owner of the property and the rent assessed is Rs. 175/-. According to the learned counsel for the purposes of assessing the rate of rent of Rs. 175/-, Ex.R.l and Rule 2 have been relied upon whereas for the other purpose as to whether Kundan Lal landlord-respondent is the owner of the property, Ex.R.l and Rule 2 have been discarded. Learned counsel has also argued that in his statement before the Trial Court, landlord- respondent Kundan Lal has stated that the title documents were submitted to the Municipal Committee and the same have not been returned by the Municipal Committee. According to the learned counsel, the non-production of the title documents is fatal to the case of the landlord-respondent because in the absence of title documents, no document could be taken into consideration for the purposes of concluding that Kundan Lal, landlord-respondent is in fact the owner.
4. Having heard the learned counsel at some length, I am of the considered view that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on overwhelming
Bhoop Chand V/s. Kay Pee Investments
Hari Shankar V/s. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury
Helper Girdhar Bai V/s. Saiyed Mohammed Mirasahed Kadri
State Of Kerala V/s. K.M. Charia Abdullah And Co.
Rajbir Kaur V/s. Chokosiri And Co.
Shiv Sarup Gupta V/s. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta
AI
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.