Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3930
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Rakesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Saroj Rani - Respondent
Civil Revision No.8169 of 2014
Decided On : 05-09-2018
Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Nitish Garg, and Ms. Aarzoo B.Grewal, Advocates, for the Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a bonafide dispute in the relationship of landlord and tenant for a tenant to be entitled to the benefit of assessing provisional rent.
Headnote:
tenant - eviction - Haryana Urban(Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13 - 2(c), 109 of the Transfer of Property Act - The court discussed the provisions of the Haryana Urban(Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, and the rights of lessor's transferee under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court emphasized the requirement of a bonafide dispute in the relationship of landlord and tenant and the implications of disputing derivative title.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant petitioned against eviction orders based on non-payment of rent, changing the nature of user, and bonafide necessity for re-construction of the building. The tenant disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant, leading to eviction orders by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant's dispute of the landlord-tenant relationship was not bonafide, and the tenant failed to take necessary steps to address the issue. The court emphasized the importance of a bonafide dispute and the implications of disputing derivative title.
Issues: The main issue was whether a tenant who has not bonafidely disputed the derivative title of a landlord is entitled to benefit from the assessment of provisional rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a tenant must have a bonafide dispute in the relationship of landlord and tenant to be entitled to the benefit of assessing provisional rent. The court emphasized that the opportunity of payment of rent after assessment of provisional rent is for the benefit of honest tenants who have taken a bonafide defence.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the eviction orders.
ORDER
Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Petitioner-tenant is in the revision petition against the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority.
2. Question which needs determination is "Whether a tenant who has not bonafidely disputed the derivative title of a landlord is entitled to benefit of one more opportunity to assessment of the provisional rent in terms of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) RCR (Rent) 514 ".
3. Some facts are required to be noticed.
4. Originally property in dispute in the shape of plot was allotted to one Shri Birbal, who transferred the same to Late Sh. Madan Bakshi. Late Sh. Madan Bakshi had constructed the house. On the death of Madan Bakshi property was inherited by his widow Kamla. The transfer was recorded in the records of Cooperative House Building Society. It is undisputed that Gopal Krishan Bakshi, son and widow-Kamla inducted petitioner-tenant in one room of the residential premises. It is the case of the landlord that Smt. Kamla transferred her rights in favour of the respondent-landlord Saroj Rani in the year 2005. In the records of the Cooperative House Building Society change was made in favour of Saroj Rani. In other words, Smt. Saroj Rani landlord was recorded as owner of the property in 2005 itself.
Respondent-landlord while asserting these facts filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban(Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, against the tenant-petitioner on 3 grounds:-
(i) non payment of rent;
(ii) changing the nature of user; and
(iii) bonafide necessity for re-construction of the building.
It was specifically pleaded in the petition that Kamla had transferred the ownership in favour of respondent-petitioner and membership of the Cooperative House Building Society has been transferred in favour of respondent-landlord on 21.05.2015.
Pursuant to the notice issued along with a copy of the petition, petitioner appeared in the court through counsel on 07.10.2009. Thereafter he sought adjournment for filing reply and case was adjourned on the request of counsel for the petitioner for 4-5 occasions. On 06.04.2010, written statement was filed by the tenant-petitioner. On 06.04.2010, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord requested that the rent be assessed. However, the court noticed that relationship of landlord and tenant has been disputed between the parties, therefore, there is no need to assess the rent at this stage. Order dated 06.04.2010 is extracted as under:-
"Written statement filed. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that let the rent be assessed. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent has denied the relationship and landlord tenants between the parties and when the relationship is so denied, there is no need to assess the rent at this stage. In the scenario, there is no need for assessment of the rent at this stage without delving into the merits of the case. Now, the case is adjourned to 7.5.2010 for filing of rejoinder if any and for framing of issues."
In the written statement which was filed on the same day, tenant-petitioner took a stand that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and he has given rent to Shri Krishan Gopal Bakshi son of Kamla, the previous landlady upto March, 2009. It may be noted that Kamla had died in the year 2005 itself.
After framing of the issues, parties went to trial and respondent-landlord in order to prove her title, examined official from the Cooperative House Building Society and produced on file transfer letter etc. After closure of evidence of the respondent-landlord, tenant filed his affidavit in lieu of its examination-in-chief and still struck to his stand that Kamla had not sold her rights in the said house along with the rented premises or the respondent-landlord has been transferred the property in the records of the
