PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Harbans Lal, J.
Daulat Ram
Versus
Girdharl Lal
Civil Revision No. 947 of 1975,
Decided On : JANUARY 15, 1980
EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT - SECTION 13 - EVICTION PETITION - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - NOTICE - ADVANCE RENT - FORGED RECEIPT - INTERPRETATION OF LAW - EVIDENCE - FINDING OF FACT - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION: 1. Prior service of notice under Section 108, Transfer of Property Act, before filing the eviction petition was not necessary so far as the eviction petitions under the Act, were concerned. 2. The lease was for a definite period of one year and the tenancy had not been terminated by a valid notice prior to the filing of the eviction petition. 3. The finding that the payment of advance rent as evidenced by the receipt was not satisfactorily proved and that the said receipt was a forged document was a concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below which was based on correct assessment of the entire evidence on the record and objective circumstances. 4. The requirement of the landlord-petitioner to occupy the premises, in dispute, was genuine and bona fide one. 5. The eviction petition was allowed and the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was restored.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord-petitioner filed an eviction petition against the tenant-respondent on the grounds of non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the premises for his own occupation. The Rent Controller allowed the petition, but the Appellate Authority dismissed it. The landlord-petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the order of the Appellate Authority.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the lease was for a definite period of one year and the tenancy had not been terminated by a valid notice prior to the filing of the eviction petition. The Court also held that the finding that the payment of advance rent as evidenced by the receipt was not satisfactorily proved and that the said receipt was a forged document was a concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below which was based on correct assessment of the entire evidence on the record and objective circumstances. The Court further held that the requirement of the landlord-petitioner to occupy the premises, in dispute, was genuine and bona fide one.
Issues: 1. Whether the lease was for a definite period or an indefinite period? 2. Whether the payment of advance rent was satisfactorily proved? 3. Whether the receipt evidencing the payment of advance rent was a forged document? 4. Whether the requirement of the landlord-petitioner to occupy the premises, in dispute, was genuine and bona fide?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the lease was for a definite period of one year based on the evidence on record and the fact that the landlord-petitioner had not produced the lease deed. 2. The Court held that the payment of advance rent was not satisfactorily proved based on the evidence of the witnesses and the circumstances of the case. 3. The Court held that the receipt evidencing the payment of advance rent was a forged document based on the evidence of the expert witnesses and the circumstances of the case. 4. The Court held that the requirement of the landlord-petitioner to occupy the premises, in dispute, was genuine and bona fide based on the evidence of the landlord-petitioner and the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the Appellate Authority, and restored the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller.
1. The petition, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. (hereinafter to be called the Act), by the landlord-petitioner was allowed by the Rent Controller Barnala, vide his order dated August 31, 1973, and the tenant,-respondent was directed to vacate the house (hereinafter to be called the premises, in dispute). Appeal against the said order was, however, accepted by the Appellate Authority and the eviction petition was dismissed by order, dated June 7, 1976, which has been challenged in the present revision petition.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the landlord-petitioner filed the eviction petition through his Mukhtiar-i-am, Ravinder Singla for evicting the tenant-respondent from the premises, in dispute, situated in Barnala on the grounds that the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 33/- per mensem had not been paid by the respondent with effect from June 1, 1971 till the date of the filing of the eviction petition and that the petitioner required the premises in dispute, bona fide for his own occupation. It was also averred that the notice for vacation of premises, in dispute, had also been served. In reply, the case of the respondent was that advance rent for five years for the period from June 1, 1971 to May 31, 1976 had been already paid to the petitioner and a duly executed receipt, Exhibit R.4, had been obtained, that the lease of the premises, in dispute was for an indefinite period and no legally valid notice terminating the tenancy had been served perior to the filing of the eviction petition and that the petitioner did not require the premises bona fide for his own occupation.
3. After the evidence had been adduced on both sides, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the lease was not for indefinite period but was for one year which had expired prior to the filing of the eviction petition and a valid notice as required under the law had also been served and that the requirement of the petitioner for self-occupation of the premises, in dispute, was bona fide. As regards the payment of advance rent, a categorical finding was returned that the advance rent had not been paid and that the receipt, Exhibit R.4, relating thereto was a forged one. So far as the arrears of rent were concerned, the respondent had paid the same along with costs and interest on the first date of hearing and as such, the ground relating thereto did not survive. In appeal, the Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller regarding the payment of advance rent and that the receipt, Exhibit R.4, was a forged document. However, it was held that the lease was for an indefinite period and the tenancy had not been terminated by a valid notice prior to the filing of the eviction petition and as such, the petitioner had no locus standi to file the same. The finding of the Rent Controller regarding bona fide requirement by the petitioner was also reversed and it was concluded that it was not proved that the alleged requirement by the petitioner was bona fide.
4. As regards the notice to be served on the respondent, it was conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent that the legal position has been finally settled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that prior service of notice under Section 108, Transfer of Property Act, before filing the eviction petition was not necessary so far as the eviction petitions under the Act, were concerned As to the question whether the lease was for a definite period, the lease deed was not produced by the petitioner The application by the respondent for permission to lead secondary evidence relating to the said lease deed was allowed by the Rent Controller, but in spite of the same, the statement was made by the counsel for the respondent that he did not want to press his objection regarding the legality and validity of the notice. The Appellate Authority, however, still gave a finding that the notice to terminate the tenancy was necessary and
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.