Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMIT RAWAL, J.
Chander Parkash Soni - Appellant
Versus
Dr. R.S. Grewal & ors. – Respondent
RSA No. 3241, 3720 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided on : 21.01.2016
Mr. Vikas Bahl, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Narinder Kumar Vadehra, Advocate for appellant. (In both appeals)
Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vibhav Jain, Advocate & Mr. Arun Gupta, Ms. Kanika Grewal, Advocate for respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that tenancy rights created by a life Estate holder could be extended beyond his life, and the status of the tenants as tenants continued even after the change of ownership.
Headnote:
TENANCY - Property Dispute - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 2(i) - Smt. Shiv Dev Kaur Grewal's limited right to property - Court found that tenancy rights created by life Estate holder could be extended beyond his life - Tenants' status as tenants continued even after change of ownership - Court held that the plea of the respondent plaintiff that the status of the appellant defendant would cease to exist on the demise of Shiv Dev Kaur Grewal was not sustainable - Judgment and decree of both the Courts below were set aside - Appellant defendants were allowed to continue as tenants, and the respondent plaintiff was given the option to seek ejectment of the appellant in case any grounds of ejectment were available as per the prevailing Rent Laws
Fact of the Case:
The respondent plaintiff sought possession of shops from the appellant defendants, claiming that the property was owned by Dr. Hira Singh Grewal and later mutated in the name of Dr. Shiv Dev Singh Grewal and his legal heirs. The appellant defendants contested the suit, claiming to be tenants and denying Dr. Hira Singh's ownership of the property. Both the Courts below decreed the suits in favor of the respondent plaintiff, finding that the limited right given to Shiv Dev Kaur Grewal did not convert to absolute ownership and that the tenancy rights created by her during her lifetime came to an end upon her demise.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the tenancy rights created by life Estate holder could be extended beyond his life, and the status of the appellant defendants as tenants continued even after the change of ownership. The Court held that the plea of the respondent plaintiff that the status of the appellant defendant would cease to exist on the demise of Shiv Dev Kaur Grewal was not sustainable. The judgment and decree of both the Courts below were set aside, allowing the appellant defendants to continue as tenants, and giving the respondent plaintiff the option to seek ejectment of the appellant in case any grounds of ejectment were available as per the prevailing Rent Laws.
Issues: The main issues were whether the defendants continued to be tenants even after the change of ownership and whether the possession of the tenant became unlawful upon the change of ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the tenancy rights created by life Estate holder could be extended beyond his life, and the status of the appellant defendants as tenants continued even after the change of ownership. The Court found that the plea of the respondent plaintiff that the status of the appellant defendant would cease to exist on the demise of Shiv Dev Kaur Grewal was not sustainable.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of both the Courts below were set aside, allowing the appellant defendants to continue as tenants, and giving the respondent plaintiff the option to seek ejectment of the appellant in case any grounds of ejectment were available as per the prevailing Rent Laws.
AMIT RAWAL, J.
This order of mine shall dispose of two Regular Second Appeals bearing No.3241 of 2014 titled as Chander Parkash Soni Vs. R.S. Grewal & ors. and RSA No.3720 of 2014 titled as Sushil Kumar Tiwari Vs. R.S. Grewal and ors. filed at the instance of defendants who are aggrieved of the findings rendered by both the Courts below, whereby suit for possession of the suit property in their occupation, as tenants, have been decreed.
Mr. Vikas Bahl, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Narinder Kumar Vadehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that suit for possession ex facie was not maintainable, for, the defendants were put into possession of the shops as tenants by Smt. Shivdev Kaur d/o Hira Singh. In order to appreciate the aforementioned contention, it would be apt to give brief facts which has resulted into passing of the impugned judgment and decrees of both the Courts below.
The respondent plaintiff instituted two civil suits against the appellants defendants claiming possession of shops of single storey as shown in the site plan attached as per the description given in the plaints, on the premise that Dr. Hira Singh Grewal was owner of the residential house as shown in red, yellow and green colour in the plan along with some shops constructed on College Road, bearing Municipal No.B-XX-69(old) 515 (new), College Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. Behind the Kothi No.B-XX-69 towards its Southern side, there is agricultural land situated in Mahal Bagat Ludhiana. It has been further pleaded in the suit that Shiv Dev Kaur was allowed to live in the main kothi and to enjoy the rent in accordance with the terms of the Will dated 16.09.1944, in essence, the right of possession of the property aforementioned was deferred till her death. After the death of Hira Singh, the property owned by him was mutated in the name of Dr. Shiv Dev Singh Grewal father of the plaintiff who died on 14.08.1968 and thereafter in the name of mother of the plaintiff No.1, plaintiff No.1 and Dr. J.S. Grewal the brother of plaintiff No.1 in equal share. The suit further spells out, that Income Tax Officer, District-II-7, Ludhiana attached the said house i.e. B-69, (Old) and adjacent land measuring 3 bigha 19 bigha, 16 biswansi as some tax/wealth tax was due from Dr. Shiv Dev Kaur d/o Hira Singh Grewal. The aforementioned attachment was done on the basis of the recovery certificate bearing No.TRO 105 to 112 forwarded by Income Tax Officer II(7) resulting into passing of an order dated 20.01.1986. The attachment order of the Income Tax Officer was challenged in a Civil Suit bearing No.89 of 17.03.1986. The same was decreed and the matter reached up to this Court and RSA bearing No.2635 of 1996 was filed which was disposed of vide order dated 22.05.1997, wherein, it was held that Income Tax/Wealth Tax due from Shiv Dev Kaur Grewal can be recovered by the Income Tax Department from the rental income derived by or accruing to her from the main kothi and the shops during her lifetime only. Shiv Dev Kaur died on 15.02.1998 and as per the pleadings, her limited right to live in the house and utilisation of the rent, extinguished. It is in these circumstances, the plaintiff sought the possession of the house as well as that of the shops let out by her to the present defendants. It has been further pleaded that Shiv Dev Kaur as per the contents of the Will, ibid had no right RSA Nos.3241 & 3720 of 2014 (O&M) 4to let out the property & in any case any tenancy created by her, i.e. was not bound to the plaintiffs. The appellant-defendant contested the suit by taking plea, that Dr. Hira Singh was not the owner of the property in dispute. Since, they are tenants, much less, suit was not maintainable as their status is of tenants and possession can only sought by resorting to the provision of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and not in the manner and mode adopted i.e. “SUIT FOR POSSESSION”. Though execution of the Will wa
