Ramu @ Ramesh Kumar vs Kailash Kumari
2023 Latest Caselaw 14015 P&H

                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111001




                                                               2023:PHHC:111001
CR-1187-2023                                                                 -1-


209          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
                                               CR-1187-2023
                                      DECIDED ON: 24.08.2023

RAMU @ RAMESH KUMAR
                                                                .....PETITIONER

                                 VERSUS

KAILASH KUMARI
                                                               .....RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL.

Present:     Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate with
             Mr. Nipun Verma, Advocate and
             Mr. Hoshiar Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate
             for the respondent.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated

23.02.2023 vide which provisional rent was assessed by the Rent Controller,

Hansi.

2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred

to as the 'Rent Act') seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from a house

situated in Hansi, District Hisar. The grounds of eviction were non-payment of

rent, diminishing the value and utility of the tenanted premises and personal

necessity of the elder son of the respondent-landlord. In the written statement

filed by the petitioner-tenant, a stand was taken that an agreement to sell had

been executed by the respondent-landlord in favour of the petitioner-tenant

and that he had paid the entire sale consideration and had also filed a civil suit

for specific performance as a result of which the relationship of landlord and

tenant had come to an end. On merits also, the petition was resisted.

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111001

2023:PHHC:111001

3. Before the Rent Controller, when the issue of assessment of

provisional rent arose, a stand was taken by the petitioner-tenant that since the

relationship of landlord and tenant had been denied, the provisional rent was

not required to be assessed. This plea was, however, negated by the Rent

Controller, Hansi and in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of

India in the case of 'Rakesh Wadhawan and Others Vs. Jagdamba Industrial

Corporation and Others', 2002 (2), PLR, 370, provisional rent was assessed

leading to the filing of the present revision petition by the petitioner-tenant.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

paper book.

5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner-tenant has

strenuously urged that the Rent Controller erred in assessing the provisional

rent despite the fact that the relationship of landlord and tenant had been

denied by the petitioner-tenant. Much emphasis has been laid upon the point

that the entire sale consideration stands paid to the respondent-landlord and a

suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell has also been filed.

Learned counsel has referred to the written statement (Annexure P-1) and has

pointed out the specific portions of the written statement wherein the

relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. In support of his contentions,

learned counsel has relied upon the judgments passed by Co-ordinate Benches

of this High Court in CR-4295-2000 titled as 'Devinder Singh Puri Vs. B.N.

Rampal', 2004 (3) PLR 591, CR-5850-2006 titled as 'M/s Rachitech

Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Kundan Steels Pvt. Ltd.' 2007 (3) RCR (Civil)

182 and CR-1117-2003 titled as 'Ramanand Shastri Vs. Gian Singh', 2003

(1) RCR (Rent) 735.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the

respondent-landlord has submitted that there is no illegality in the order

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111001

2023:PHHC:111001

passed by the Rent Controller, Hansi and that the assessment of provisional

rent was done strictly in accordance with law. It has been submitted that the

relationship of landlord and tenant was in fact admitted and only a false stand

of an alleged agreement to sell having been executed was taken. Learned

counsel has submitted that the suit for specific performance was filed by the

petitioner-tenant after the filing of the eviction petition by the

respondent-landlord. Learned counsel has contended that the impugned order

is legal and valid and does not call for any interference in Revisional

jurisdiction. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.8384-8386

of 2017 titled as 'Jaspal Kaur Cheema and Another Vs. M/s Industrial

Trade Links and Others Etc.', 2017 (3) RCR (Civil) 794 and the judgments

passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this High Court in CR-3137-1981 titled

as 'Smt. Joginder Kaur Vs. Hindu Undivided Family of Kidar Narth and

Son', CR-3302-2006 titled as 'M/s Rachitech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s

Kundan Steels Pvt. Ltd.' 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 182, CR-5633-2013 titled as

'Akash Sheet Vs. Naresh Bhutani', 2014 (3) RCR (Civil) 75, CR-2210-1982

titled as 'Asharfi Devi @ Sarswati Devi Vs. Shankar (Died) through LRs',

2000 (1) RCR (Rent) 548, CR-1054-2018 titled as 'Harish Chander Vs.

Manjit Singh Gulati and Another', 2000 (1) RCR (Rent) 145, CR-1960-2020

titled as 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Inder Singh', 2000 (2) RCR (Rent) 333 and

CR-93-1994 titled as 'Kishori Lal Vs. Radha Rani Gupta', 1994 (2) RCR

(Rent) 647.

7. I have given due consideration to the arguments addressed by

learned counsel for the parties.

8. Admittedly, the petition under Section 13 of the Rent Act was

filed by the respondent-landlord seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111001

2023:PHHC:111001

the tenanted premises. The grounds of eviction were non-payment of rent,

diminishing the utility and value of the tenanted premises and bona fide

necessity.

8.1 A written statement was filed by the petitioner-tenant in which in

the preliminary objections, it was averred that there was no relationship of

landlord and tenant and the same had ceased to exist after an agreement to sell

had been executed in favour of the petitioner-tenant. It was also averred that

the tenanted premises was under the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant for the

last several years under the previous owner from whom the present

respondent-landlord had purchased the tenanted premises. It was averred that

since the petitioner-tenant was in possession of the tenanted premises as a

tenant, he was willing to purchase the same and accordingly an oral agreement

to sell was executed vide which the respondent-landlord agreed to sell the

tenanted premises to the petitioner-tenant for a total sale consideration of

₹15,15,000/-. It was also averred that the entire sale consideration had been

paid over a period of time and as had been agreed between the parties, the rent

was not required to be paid after the payment of 50% of the sale

consideration.

9. It, therefore, essentially means that the relationship of landlord

and tenant was admitted. It was admitted that the petitioner-tenant was a

tenant in the tenanted premises but on account of the agreement to sell having

been executed between the parties, the relationship had ceased to exist.

10. In the considered opinion of this Court, this stand cannot sustain

in law. The petitioner-tenant was a tenant in the tenanted premises. Merely

because an oral agreement to sell had been executed between the parties

which itself is yet to be proved since the suit is pending, it cannot be said that

the relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased to exist. The stand taken by

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111001

2023:PHHC:111001

the petitioner-tenant seems to be just a ploy to avoid payment of rent. It has

been held by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in a number of cases that

where an agreement to sell had allegedly been executed between the landlord

and the tenant, the tenant would not be permitted to deny the relationship of

landlord and tenant and the mere execution of an agreement to sell would not

ipso facto mean that the relationship would come to an end. This view was

taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CR-5633-2013 titled as 'Akash

Sheet Vs. Naresh Bhutani', 2014 (3) RCR (Civil) 75 wherein, the Co-

ordinate Bench, while dealing with a revision petition filed by petitioner-

tenant against an order of eviction held that an agreement to sell would not

confer any title on a party unless the same is enforced in law against the

executant of such an agreement. It was an admitted case that the matter was

pending before the Civil Court and the said matter could go in favour of either

party. It was held that since the tenants were in possession of the suit property

as tenants, their status with regard to the said property would remain to be that

of a tenant and it could not be said that there would be no relationship of

landlord and tenant between the parties or that they were not obliged to tender

the provisional rent as assessed. The aforesaid findings of the Co-ordinate

Bench are reproduced hereinbelow:-

"4. The tenant-petitioners admittedly failed to tender the provisionally assessed rent on the stipulated date i.e. 15.5.2012. Consequently, the Rent Controller following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhavan & ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) RCR (Rent) 514:2002(2) PLR 370 and the DB judgment of this Court in Rajan@Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010(1) RCR (Rent) 386:2012 (2) PLR 201 ordered eviction of the petitioners from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of provisional rent, as assessed. The petitioners filed an appeal

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111001

2023:PHHC:111001

before the Appellate Authority which was also dismissed.

5. Challenging the aforesaid order, counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the impugned orders of eviction have been passed erroneously, ignoring the fact that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the petitioners were not liable to pay any rent, as they have become the owner of the suit property vide agreement to sell dated 27.12.2007 and a civil litigation i.e. suit for specific performance of agreement to sell is already pending between them and even vide order dated 28.3.2011, the Civil Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the petitioners over the suit property and further alienation of the suit property.

6. The argument raised is liable to be rejected outrightly. It is well settled that an agreement to sell will not confer any title on a party, unless the same is enforced in law against the executant of such an agreement. Admittedly, the matter is pending before the Civil Court and that may go in favour or against the petitioners. Further, it may be noticed that admittedly, the petitioners are in possession of the suit property as tenants and till date, their status with regard to the said property is of tenants and thus, it cannot be said that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the petitioners were not obliged to tender the provisional rent, as assessed."

A similar view was taken by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Smt.

Joginder Kaur's case (Supra), M/s Rachitech Engineering Pvt. Ltd's case

(Supra), Asharfi Devi's case (Supra), Harish Chander's case (Supra),

Rajinder Kumar's case (Supra) and Kishori Lal's case (Supra).

11. I have perused the judgments relied upon by learned counsel

representing the petitioner. In the case of 'Devinder Singh Puri Vs. B.N.

Rampal', 2004 (3) PLR 591 and 'Ramanand Shastri Vs. Gian Singh', 2003

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111001

2023:PHHC:111001

(1) RCR (Rent) 735, the tenant had denied the relationship of landlord and

tenant. Under the circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench held that once the

relationship had been denied, the Rent Controller would not be required to

draw an order of assessment of provisional rent. However, in those cases, the

situation was not the same as in the present case and there was no question of

there being an admitted tenancy and subsequently an agreement to sell having

been arrived at. In those cases, there was a plain denial of tenancy and in fact

in the case of Devinder Singh Puri (supra), the revision petition was filed by

the petitioner-tenant was dismissed while holding that the relationship of

landlord and tenant had been admitted. Same was the case in the case of

Ramanand Shastri (supra). In this case, the stand of the tenant was that the

landlord was no longer the landlord and the property in dispute was owned

and possessed subsequently by the Waqf Board. This judgment would also,

therefore, not come to the aid of the petitioner.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not

find any merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

                                                 (VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
24.08.2023                                             JUDGE
Prince Chawla

          Whether speaking/reasoned        Yes/No
          Whether reportable               Yes/No




                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111001

                                      7 of 7