Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balkar Singh vs Sucha Singh on 20 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165665
2023:PHHC:165665
CR-4412-2023(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-4412-2023(O&M)
Reserved on : 29.11.2023
Pronounced on : 20.12.2023
Balkar Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Sucha Singh
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present:- Mr. R.K.Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for the respondent-caveator.
*****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
1. The petitioner - Balkar Singh has filed the present civil
revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the
judgment dated 01.07.2023 passed by learned Appellate Authority,
Gurdaspur and ejectment order dated 08.02.2023 passed by learned Rent
Controller, Gurdaspur alleging that the impugned orders are based on
conjectures and surmises and non appreciation of material evidence
available on the record.
2. The facts of the case are that Sucha Singh - respondent (petitioner in
the main case) filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban
Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of respondent from the shop marked as
IJKL shown in red dotted lines in the site plan with the boundaries as
detailed in the petition, situated at Dadwan Road Dhariwal, Tehsil and
District Gurdaspur. The petitioner/landlord submitted that the shop in
1 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165665
2023:PHHC:165665
CR-4412-2023(O&M)
question was owned by him which was in occupation of the
respondent/tenant for the last about 20 years on a monthly rent of
Rs.1,000/-. There existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the
parties. The respondent/tenant is liable to be ejected from the shop in
dispute on the ground of non payment of rent since January, 2000 and
secondly, he required the demised shop for his own use and occupation as
well as for use and occupation of his sons namely Ajay Paul Singh and
Montek Singh who were dependent on him. He wanted to engage himself
as well as his sons in the business. The said shop is part and parcel of the
building owned by him. It is old double storey building over a plot
measuring 23 marlas situated at Dadwan Road, Dhariwal, Tehsil and
District Gurdaspur. The site plan of the entire building was placed on
record. It consisted of 5 shops and a motor room in the front portion.
There were residential rooms on the first floor of these shops. The shops
are integrated part of the remaining building. His son Ajay Pal Singh was
Law Graduate but he was not settled in his legal profession, therefore, he
wanted to settle down his son Ajay Paul Singh and other son Montek
Singh who was about to complete his studies in business. They wanted to
open a departmental store-cum-mall by raising new construction as shown
in the site plan. He had also filed ejectment petitions against the other
tenants who were in possession of four shops as shown in the site plan.
The entire old structure would be demolished to construct a commercial
building i.e. departmental store/mall. He was not occupying any other
building or vacated any such building in the urban area of Dhariwal. He
requested the respondent to pay the arrears of rent but he put off the matter
on one excuse or the other. He also asked the respondent several times to
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165665
2023:PHHC:165665
CR-4412-2023(O&M)
vacate the demised shop and to hand over the vacant possession but he
refused to do so and ultimately, the present ejectment petition was filed by
the petitioner/landlord- Sucha Singh.
3. The petition was contested by the respondent by filing written
reply taking preliminary objection that the ejectment application was not
maintainable. The petitioner did not come to the Court with clean hands.
He had no locus standi or cause of action to file this case. The respondent
was dragged in unnecessary litigation. On merits, it was denied that the
shop in question marked as IJKL shown in red colour was owned by the
petitioner. In fact he was neither owner of the shop nor has got any right,
title or interest therein. The respondent was in occupation of demised shop
for the last about 35 years. It was denied that monthly rent of the shop was
Rs.1,000/-. The relationship of landlord and tenant was also denied. In
fact, he was inducted as tenant by Smt. Raj Rani on a monthly rent of
Rs.200/-. He is running business in the shop for earning his livelihood. It
was further denied that he was in arrears of rent since January, 2000. It
was further denied that the petitioner was having bona fide requirement for
the said shop for his own use and occupation or the same was required for
his sons. It was further denied that the shops are part and parcel of the
remaining building. It was denied that in the front portion, there exist 5
shops and a motor room owned by the petitioner. The shops are not part
and parcel of the said building. The petitioner had no right to demolish the
shop in possession of the answering respondent. The site plan was
incorrect. The petitioner never made any request to the respondent. It was
prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner deserved dismissal with cost.
4. In replication, the averments in the written statement were
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165665
2023:PHHC:165665
CR-4412-2023(O&M)
denied and those of petition were reiterated. From the pleadings of the
parties, following issues were framed on 02.02.2019 and further one
additional issue was also framed on 08.02.2023:-
1. Whether there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties? OPP
2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR
3. Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean
hands? OPR
4. Whether the petitioner has no lcous standi to file the present
petition OPR
5. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present
petition? OPR
6. Relief.
1-A Whether the applicant/petitioner is entitled to eject the respondent
from the demised shop in question on the ground of personal
necessity for himself as well as for his sons? OPP
5. In order to prove the petition, the petitioner examined
Ashwani Kumar Tuli, Draftsman as PW-1, Surinder Pal, Junior Assistant
office of Municipal Council, Dhariwal as PW-3, he himself stepped into
the witness box as PW-3, Rajan Kumar, Registry Clerk as PW-4, Ajay
Paul Singh as PW-5. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner tendered
in evidence documents Ex.P10 to Ex.P13 and closed the evidence.
6. To rebut the evidence of the petitioner/respondent-Balkar
Singh himself stepped into the witness box as RW-1 and tendered
documents Exhibit R-2 to R-5 and closed the evidence.
7. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties, the petition filed by Sucha Singh-petitioner was allowed vide
ejectment order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the then Rent Controller,
Gurdaspur. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order, Rent Appeal was
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165665
2023:PHHC:165665
CR-4412-2023(O&M)
filed against respondent/petitioner. Regarding non-payment of rent another
additional issue No. 1-B was framed. Ultimately, appeal was also
dismissed vide judgment dated 01.07.2023. Feeling aggrieved of this
judgment, the petitioner/tenant has filed present civil revision.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant argued that the
impugned judgment dated 01.07.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority,
Gurdaspur and the ejectment order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the learned
Rent Controller, Gurdaspur are liable to be set aside. The evidence
available on record was not considered by the Courts below. In fact there
is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The
petitioner/tenant claimed that he took the shop in dispute on rent from Smt.
Raj Rani wife of Dharminder Nath and he is in possession of the shop for
the last about 36 years. He was inducted as tenant on rent at the rate of
Rs.200/- per month which he paid to Smt. Raj Rani, the landlady. The
respondent (petitioner in the main case) had based his entire claim on the
basis of one sale deed dated 23.01.1998 Exhibit P-9 regarding purchase of
1 kanal 3 marlas of land from Smt. Raj Rani. The perusal of said sale deed
clearly indicated that it was sale of old building and there was no reference
of 5 shops or tenants in the said building. Therefore, the shop in the
possession of present petitioner is not part and parcel of the building
purchased by the respondent vide sale deed dated 23.01.1998 Exhibit P-9.
Therefore, the findings given by the Courts below that the respondent
(petitioner in the main case) had purchased the said building including the
shop in question is without merits. There is no evidence to establish that
the present petitioner/tenant had ever acknowledged the respondent as his
landlord or paid any rent to him. The Courts below wrongly concluded that
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165665
2023:PHHC:165665
CR-4412-2023(O&M)
there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In
fact, the respondent (petitioner in the main case) had no locus standi to file
this case against the present petitioner/tenant. The findings given by the
Courts below that the respondent (petitioner in the main case) required the
shop in question for his personal use and occupation is also without
justification. In order to seek ejectment on the ground of non payment of
rent and for personal use and necessity, the respondent (petitioner in the
main case) firstly required to establish that he was owner of the premises
in dispute. From the evidence led by the respondent (petitioner in the main
case), it is not established that he had purchased the shop in question from
his landlady namely Raj Rani. The findings given by the Courts below
pertaining to issue No.1, 1A and 1B and issue No. 2 to 5 are liable to be set
aside. It was prayed that the ejectment order passed by the learned Rent
Controller dated 08.02.2023 and the impugned judgment dated 01.07.2023
passed by the learned Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal is without
justification. It is submitted that the present civil revision may be accepted
and the aforesaid judgments passed by the Courts below may kindly be set
aside by dismissing the ejectment petition filed by respondent-Sucha
Singh.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
pointed out that the facts of the case and the evidence on record are rightly
appreciated by the Courts below. There is documentary evidence on
record to establish that Sucha Singh is the landlord/owner of the shop in
dispute along with the remaining building by virtue of registered sale deed
dated 23.01.1998 Exhibit P-9. The property was rightly described in the
sale deed as well as in the site plan proved on record. There are residential
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165665
2023:PHHC:165665
CR-4412-2023(O&M)
rooms on the first floor over the shops including the shop in dispute. The
shops are integrated part of the remaining building and it cannot be
separated. The recital in the sale deed as well as the record of assessment
register proved on file was rightly considered by the Courts below and it
was rightly concluded that Sucha Singh-respondent (petitioner in the main
case) had purchased the entire building including the shop regarding which
ejectment petition was filed. Regarding the other tenants separate
ejectment petitions were filed. The possession of one of the shop was
taken from the tenant Dharampal whereas Balwinder Singh surrendered
the possession of the shop and regarding third tenant Bua Singh the
execution proceedings are going on. The respondent (petitioner in the
main case) required the shop in question along with other shops for his
personal use and occupation. He along with his sons Ajay Paul Singh and
Montek Singh wanted to start their own business by constructing a new
building i.e. a departmental store-cum-mall. The need of the landlord is
bana fide and genuine. The Courts below rightly concluded that Sucha
Singh required the shop in question for his own personal use and
occupation as well as to settle down his sons. It is pointed out that the
present petitioner is occupying the shop in question without payment of
any rent since the year 2000. Even after the decision of learned Appellate
Authority vide impugned judgment dated 01.07.2023, the present
petitioner did not make any effort to pay the arrears of rent. Therefor, the
present petitioner was rightly evicted from the shop in question on the
ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground that the landlord
required the premises for his own use and occupation. The civil revision
preferred by the present petitioner/tenant is without merits and the same
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165665
2023:PHHC:165665
CR-4412-2023(O&M)
may kindly be dismissed.
10. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and I
have also gone through the learned trial Court record carefully. Sucha
Singh the respondent (petitioner in the main case) filed ejectment petition
against Balkar Singh tenant regarding shop marked as IJKL shown in red
colour situated at Dadwan Road Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
The respondent (petitioner in the main case) claimed that he had purchased
the shop including the entire building from Smt. Raj Rani vide registered
sale deed dated 23.01.1998 which is proved on record as Exhibit P-9. On
the basis of this sale deed, Sucha Singh claimed that there existed
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On the other hand
the present petitioner/tenant Balkar Singh denied the relationship of
landlord and tenant and he asserted that he was inducted as tenant by Smt.
Raj Rani. As per his version, the shop in question is not part of the
building which was purchased by Sucha Singh from Raj Rani vide sale
deed dated 23.01.1998 Exhibit P-9. The perusal of ejectment order dated
08.02.2023 as well as the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority
dated 01.07.2023 reveals that before the Courts below the main argument
advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant Balkar Singh was
that he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The
present Civil Revision has been argued on the same line.
The respondent/landlord has proved on record copy of sale
deed dated 23.01.1998 Exhibit P-9 vide which he purchased old building
in dilapidated condition situated in Khasra No.289/2/2(1.3) consisting of 5
rooms in poor condition along with gate and boundary wall for a sum of
Rs.4,50,000/-. The execution and registration of sale deed is proved on
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165665
2023:PHHC:165665
CR-4412-2023(O&M)
record by examining Rajan Kumar, Registry Clerk as PW-4 as well as by
Sucha Singh as PW-3. The copy of jamabandi for the year 2017-18 is
Exhibit P-10 and on the basis of aforesaid sale deed mutation No.7421 was
sanctioned and copy of mutation is Exhibit P-11. The learned Appellate
Authority in the impugned judgment dated 01.07.2023 categorically dealt
with the point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant that in
this sale deed there was reference of 5 rooms in dilapidated condition
instead of five shops, otherwise there is no dispute regarding the identity
of property. The said sale deed is not disputed by the vendor Raj Rani
who has admittedly shifted to Delhi after the demise of her husband. The
present petitioner/tenant admitted that he had taken the shop in question on
rent from Smt. Raj Rani. Apart from the title deed duly reflected in the
revenue record there is testimony of Surinder Pal, Junior Assistant,
Municpal Council Dhariwal examined as PW-2 who has proved on record
the assessment register for the year 2004-05 Exhibit P-2 where Sucha
Singh has been shown in the column of ownership and the present
petitioner along with other tenants is shown in column No.5. These entries
are further confirmed in the assessment register for year 2010-11 which is
Exhibit P-3. There are receipts of payment of property tax by Sucha
Singh-respondent (petitioner in the main case) which are Exhibit P-4 to
P-8. The respondent/landlord further examined Ashwani Kumar Tuli,
Draftsman as PW-1 who has proved the site plan of the entire property
Exhibit P-1 in which the shop in question is marked as IJKL as detailed in
the ejectment petition. In order to rebut the aforesaid evidence, there is
sole testimony of Balkar Singh, the tenant as RW-1. I have also gone
through the cross-examination of this witness which confirmed that the
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165665
2023:PHHC:165665
CR-4412-2023(O&M)
entire building is situated on Dadwan Road, Dhariwal, Tehsil and District,
Gurdaspur. The shop in question as well as the shop in possession of his
brother are within the Municipal limits of Dhariwal. He claimed that there
was rent note executed with Raj Rani but it was lost. The location of all
the shops as shown in the site plan Exhibit P-1 is confirmed by this
witness during his cross-examination. Therefore, there is nothing on
record to show that the shop in possession of present petitioner/tenant is
not part and parcel of the property purchased by Sucha Singh - respondent
(petitioner in the main case) by virtue of sale deed dated 23.01.1998
Exhibit P-9. The self serving statement of Balkar Singh RW-1 is not
sufficient to ignore the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on
the file by Sucha Singh - respondent (petitioner in the main case). Once
Sucha Singh purchased the property from Smt. Raj Rani, the previous
owner, he stepped into the shoes of previous vendor. Therefore, the
findings given by the Courts below regarding the relationship of landlord
and tenant between the parties is duly established.
11. Sucha Singh - respondent (petitioner in the main case) filed
this ejectment petition on two grounds and one of the ground was that the
tenant was in arrears of rent since January, 2000. It is matter of record that
no rent has been paid by the present petitioner since January, 2000. He
claimed to be in possession of shop in question for the last about 36/37
years. Sucha Singh respondent (petitioner in the main case) filed the
ejectment petition against the present petitioner that he is in arrears of rent
since January 2000. The perusal of impugned judgment dated 01.07.2023
passed by the learned Appellate Authority indicates that during the
pendency of the appeal additional issue 1-B was framed as to whether the
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165665
2023:PHHC:165665
CR-4412-2023(O&M)
tenant is in arrears of rent. Before the learned Rent Controller, the
relationship of landlord and tenant was disputed, as a result neither any
issue was framed nor any finding came on record. Regarding this issue the
findings are returned by the learned Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur in the
impugned judgment. It is rightly pointed out that the rent receipts Exhibit
R2 and R-3 relied upon by the petitioner/tenant cannot be safely relied
upon as these rent receipts are pertaining to two shops. Therefore, it
cannot be co-related with the shop in question. The learned Rent
Controller returned the finding in the ejectment order dated 08.02.2023
that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties
and despite this there was no effort on the part of present petitioner/tenant
to pay the arrears of rent. The learned Appellate Authority concluded that
the rate of rent of the shop in question was Rs.200/- per month and he is in
arrears of rent w.e.f. January, 2000 which he failed to pay. The learned
counsel for the landlord/respondent (petitioner in the main case) pointed
out that the petitioner/tenant is in possession of the shop since then without
payment of any rent. Therefore it was rightly concluded by the learned
Appellate Authority that Balkar Singh petitioner/tenant is liable to be
evicted from the shop in question on account of non payment of arrears of
rent and the findings given by the learned Appellate Authority pertaining
to issue No.1-B does not require any interference.
12. The landlord/respondent (petitioner in the main case) also
filed this ejectment petition on the ground that he requires the shop for his
personal use and necessity as well as to settle down his sons namely Ajay
Paul Singh and Montek Singh. The landlord wanted to construct a
departmental store/mall by eviction of all the tenants to start his business
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165665
2023:PHHC:165665
CR-4412-2023(O&M)
along with his sons. The version put forward by Sucha Singh PW-3 is also
confirmed by one of his son Ajay Paul Singh as PW-5. He also explained
that they had already received possession of two shops from the tenants
and regarding one shop execution proceedings were going on. By no
means it can be said that the requirement of Sucha Singh is unreasonable
or not genuine. The landlord/respondent (petitioner in the main case) has
every right to start his own business in his own premises as per his desire.
It is his moral duty to settle down his grown up sons during his lifetime.
Therefore, the requirement of landlord/respondent (petitioner in the main
case) for the tenanted shop is bona fide. Thus, the findings given by the
learned Rent Controller as well as by the learned Appellate Authority on
issue No.1-A does not require any interference.
13. Considering the facts of the case and the evidence on record,
the findings arrived at by the learned Rent Controller while passing
ejectment order dated 08.02.2023 and the findings given by the learned
Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 01.07.2023, do not suffer from
any illegality or irregularity. Therefore, the findings given by the Courts
below are accordingly upheld and the civil revision preferred by the
present petitioner is accordingly declined.
The records received from the two Courts below be sent back
to the concerned quarter.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
20.12.2023 (AMARJOT BHATTI)
Sunil Devi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165665
12 of 12
