Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARCHANA PURI, J.
Ram Gopal – Petitioner
Versus
Rekha Tyagi – Respondent
CR-360 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 22-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate; For the Petitioner (in CR-360-2017).
Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate; For the Petitioner (in CR-867-2017).
Mr. Amandeep Vashisht, Advocate; For the Respondent

Tenants denying landlord-tenant relationship cannot seek rent assessment; landlady's bona fide need for eviction upheld.

Headnote:(A) Rent Control Act - Sections pertaining to eviction and arrears of rent - Eviction petitions filed by landlady against tenants for non-payment of rent and personal necessity - Tenants denied relationship and claimed lower rent - Courts affirmed eviction based on evidence of ownership and arrears - Personal necessity deemed genuine. (Paras 1-35)

(B) Relationship of Landlord and Tenant - Denial of relationship by tenants precludes them from seeking assessment of rent - Courts held no obligation to assess provisional rent when relationship is disputed. (Paras 17-21)

(C) Personal Necessity - Landlady's claim for personal use of shops upheld despite tenants' claims of other properties - Need presumed correct unless proven otherwise. (Paras 22-30)

Facts of the case:
The landlady filed eviction petitions against tenants for non-payment of rent since 2003, asserting personal necessity for running a boutique. Tenants contested the claims, asserting lower rent and denying the landlady's ownership. (Paras 1-5)

Findings of Court:
The courts concluded that the landlady had established ownership and the tenants were in arrears of rent, affirming the eviction orders. (Paras 7-21)

Issues: The main issues were the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the genuineness of the landlady's personal necessity for the shops. (Paras 1, 22)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that tenants denying the landlord-tenant relationship cannot seek rent assessment, and the landlady's need for the shops was deemed genuine based on the evidence presented. (Paras 17-21, 34)

Result: Revision petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Archana Puri, J.

These are two revision petitions filed to challenge the concurrent findings of learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, passed in two ejectment petitions, thereby, ordering and affirming, eviction of the petitioners Ram Gopal and Som Nath, from two adjoining shops.

2. There are identical facts in both the petitions. As such, the facts, germane to be noticed, are as follows:-

That, the respondent-landlady filed eviction petition, vis-a-vis, two adjoining shops, to evict petitioners-tenants Ram Gopal and Som Nath respectively, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent @ Rs. 4000/- per month, since 05.06.2003. However, as she could not claim arrears of rent more than three years, as such, she confined the arrears of rent for the last three years i.e. 01.02.2011 to 31.01.2014, plus interest.

3. Besides the aforesaid ground, qua both the shops, the landlady also took the ground of requirement of the shop for bonafide personal use to run boutique, as she does not have an other property in her possession, which is more suitable place for the boutique purposes.

4. In the petitions, it was asserted that the shops in question were in possession of the respective tenants previously under Sh.Pushkar Dutt Tyagi, who was father-in-law of the present respondent-landlady and who had since expired. She became the owner of the demised shops by virtue of Lok Adalat Award dated 23.11.2013. Many a times, she requested the tenants to pay the arrears of rent and vacate and handover the actual possession of the shops. She also served notice dated 09.01.2014 upon the tenants, but to no heed. Hence, the ejectment petitions.

5. However, in the respective replies, the petitioners-tenants resisted the claim of the landlady. They admitted about the shops in question, having rented out by Sh.Pushkar Dutt Tyagi. They also asserted about Rekha Tyagi to be not having a right to file and maintain the petitions. Also, they asserted about the monthly rent to be Rs. 250/-, since 1988, inclusive of house tax extra and they had paid the rent to Sh.Pushkar Dutt Tyagi and deposited upto 25.12.2008, vide challan No.77, dated 24.12.2008, in the Court in a rent petition filed by Animesh Tyagi, which was decided on 25.02.2011. They denied about Rekha Tyagi to be the landlady of the shops in question and also asserted about her to be having no legal necessity for her personal use. The alleged decree/Award, if any, was got suffered only to create false grounds.

6. Issues were framed and evidence was adduced by the rival parties.

7. On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, both the petitions were allowed and the ejectment was ordered of the respective tenants.

8. To challenge the ejectment orders, respective appeals were filed by both the tenants Ram Gopal and Som Nath and vide judgments dated 21.11.2016, learned Appellate Authority had dismissed both the appeals.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitions in hand, were filed.

10. Learned counsel for the parties heard.

11. So far as, the relationship of landlady and tenants between the parties to the lis is concerned, the same was denied by both the petitioners-tenants. Though, they admitted about the shops having rented out to them by Sh.Pushkar Dutt Tyagi, but denied about present respondent Rekha Tyagi, to have become owner and in that capacity, being landlady. However, suffice to consider the shops in question, having fallen to the share of Rekha Tyagi, by way of family settlement, on the basis whereof, Award was passed by learned Lok Adalat on 23.11.2013, copy whereof is Ex.A2. Thereupon, Rekha Tyagi-landlady, had issued notice dated 09.01.2014, copy whereof is Ex.A3, thereby, intimating both the tenants about manner of herself stepping into the shoes of the previous landlord by virtue of settlement, which culminated into Award passed by Lok Adalat on 23.11.2013. Further therein, she had asked the tenants to make payment of arrears of rent and also to handover the vacant p