Punjab-Haryana High Court

Meena Arora vs Sudarshan Singh on 1 April, 2024

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

                                                                                                        -1-
                         CR No.6169 of 2018
                                                                                  2024:PHHC:042511

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                   CHANDIGARH
                         109                                           CR No.6169 of 2018 (O&M)
                                                                       Reserved on : 14.03.2024
                                                                       Pronounced on : 01.04.2024
                         Meena Arora                                                         ....Petitioner
                                                            VERSUS
                         Sudarshan Singh                                                   ....Respondent

                         CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

                         Present :      Mr. Ashok Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                        Mr. Barjesh Mittal, Advocate for the respondent.

                         ALKA SARIN, J.

1. This is a tenant's revision against the orders passed by both the

Authorities ordering her eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban

Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Rent Act).

2. As per the landlord-respondent he is the owner/landlord of the

house in question. The tenant-petitioner was inducted as a tenant on the

second floor from 01.08.2006 at a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- per month with

an increase of 10% every year. The tenancy was oral. It was pleaded that the

two children of the petitioner are married and his family has expanded and

accommodation with him is insufficient and he needs the accommodation

for his personal use to accommodate himself, his children along with their

spouses. The ground of non-payment of rent was also raised. The tenant-

petitioner contested the ejectment application and filed a written statement

taking the plea that the landlord-respondent was not the owner of the

property in question, the tenant-petitioner was being pressurized by two

persons who were claiming rent from her - one was the landlord-respondent

integrity of this judgment/order.

2024:PHHC:042511

and the other was one Mr. Tirth also known as Harcharan Singh. It was

averred that the landlord-respondent had not approached the Court with

clean hands and had suppressed material facts and that the ejectment

application was a counter blast to a civil suit filed by the tenant-petitioner.

respondent which is pending and present petition is bad for non joinder of

necessary parties. No replication was filed.

3. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were

framed by the Rent Controller :

1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent ? OPP

2. Whether the petitioner requires the premises in

question for his personal use and occupation ? OPP

3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable ?

OPR

4. Whether the present petition is bad for non-joinder

of necessary parties ? OPR

5. Relief.

4. Vide order dated 12.02.2016 the Rent Controller accepted the

ejectment application on both grounds and ordered eviction of the tenant-

petitioner. The appeal of the tenant-petitioner was dismissed by the

Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.08.2018. Hence, the present

revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has contended that

both the Authorities have erred in allowing the ejectment application filed by

the landlord-respondent who was not the owner of the property in question.

It is submitted that the property in question is owned by one Romesh

integrity of this judgment/order.

2024:PHHC:042511

Manocha who executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Kirpal Singh on

29.10.1986. The said Kirpal Singh thereafter executed a Sub Power of

Attorney in favour of the present landlord-respondent on 13.06.1994. On

these facts it was argued that the ground of bonafide personal necessity was

not available to the landlord-respondent because he was, at best, an attorney

of the owner Romesh Manocha and no personal necessity of Romesh

Manocha was ever pleaded. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheela vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash

[2002(1) RCR Rent 351] to contend that while seeking ejectment on the

ground of bonafide requirement a landlord is required to allege and prove

not only that he is a landlord but also that he is the owner of the premises.

No arguments were addressed on the point of non-payment of rent.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent argued

that the scope of a revision petition challenging orders passed under the Rent

Act is limited and cannot be equated with a second appeal. He contended

that both the Authorities have concurrently found that the landlord-

respondent requires the property in question for his and his family's

bonafide necessity and the said findings deserve to be upheld. It was

submitted that under the Rent Act a landlord need not be the owner of the

premises.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

paperbook.

8. The documents attached with the revision petition show that

one Romesh Manocha executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Kirpal

Singh on 29.10.1986 and thereafter Kirpal Singh executed a Sub Power of

integrity of this judgment/order.

2024:PHHC:042511

Attorney in favour of the present landlord-respondent on 13.06.1994. The

tenant-petitioner entered into the property in question in 2006 under the

landlord-respondent on payment of rent @ Rs.1500/- per month. In para 2 of

her preliminary objections raised in the written statement the tenant-

petitioner candidly admitted the relationship between the parties by stating

"That relationship of landlord and tenant exists between petitioner and

answering respondent and rent stand paid upto 01.10.2008 and subsequent

rent was sent through post but same was not accepted by the petitioner with

ulterior motives". Thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the

parties stands established.

9. The point canvassed by the learned counsel for the tenant-

petitioner that the landlord-respondent was only a Sub Power of Attorney

and could not seek ejectment for his own bonafide necessity but only for the

bonafide necessity of the real owner deserves to be rejected. For the

purposes of the Rent Act a person though not owner is entitled to maintain a

petition for ejectment against the tenant provided it is proved that he is

landlord of the premises. Under the provisions of the Rent Act the definition

of 'landlord' under Section 2(c) reads as under :

"2(c) 'Landlord' means any person for the time

being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building

or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf,

or for the benefit, of any other person, or as a trustee,

guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any

other person, and includes a tenant who sublets any

building or rented land in the manner hereinafter

integrity of this judgment/order.

2024:PHHC:042511

authorised, and, every person from time to time deriving

title under a landlord."

Thus, a landlord need not be an owner to maintain an ejectment application

against a tenant. He should be entitled to receive the rent, whether for

himself or for another. Infact, the definition reproduced above also makes a

tenant a landlord if he has sublet a building or rented land.

10. Having noticed the definition of the term 'landlord', it will be

useful to note that to claim a relief under Section 13(3)(a) of the Rent Act a

person must be a landlord within the meaning of the terms in Section 2(c);

his being owner of the premises is neither a pre-requisite nor a relevant

factor.

11. The Apex Court in K.D. Dewan vs. Harbhajan Singh Parihar

[2002 (1) RCR Rent 214] while dealing with personal necessity of a

landlord held as under :

"15. From the above discussion it follows that such a

truncated meaning of the term 'landlord' cannot be

imported in clause (c) of the Section 2 of the Act having

regard to the width of the language employed therein

and there is no other provision in the Act to restrict its

meaning for purposes of Section 13(3)(a) thereof to an

owner of the premises alone. The appellant has been

paying monthly rent of the premises to the respondent

from 1976. The respondent is thus the landlord of the

premises under the Act and is entitled to seek relief

under Section 13(3)(a) of the Act. In this view of the

integrity of this judgment/order.

2024:PHHC:042511

matter, we find no illegality in the order of this High

Court under challenge. The appeal is without merit and

it is liable to be dismissed."

12. In Swadesh Kumar Gupta vs. Manohar Lal Gupta [2006 (2)

RCR Rent 503] this Court while dealing with a case where the actual owner

wanted to be impleaded as a party in an ejectment application, held as under:

"11. On the other hand, Mr. Sukant Gupta, learned

counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that

once the tenant had admitted him to be landlord in the

premises, therefore, the petitioner was not a necessary

party. He also placed reliance on the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.D. Dewan v. Harbhajan S.

Parihar, 2002(1) RCR (Rent) 214 : AIR 2002 Supreme

Court 67 to contend that for the purpose of seeking

eviction of a tenant for personal occupation he need not

be owner of the premises. The contention of the learned

counsel for the respondent was that the learned Rent

Controller had rightly come to the conclusion that the

learned Rent Controller has to decide the eviction

petition on the basis of averments made in the rent

application and the stand taken by the tenant therein. It

is not open to the Rent Controller to decide about the

ownership of the property especially when in the present

case the tenant admit the respondent to be landlord of

the premises. Therefore, the ownership of the

integrity of this judgment/order.

2024:PHHC:042511

respondent is totally immaterial. Merely because one of

the grounds on the basis of which the application filed

by the petitioner was not found to be correct would not

automatically lead to the conclusion that the impugned

order is required to be set aside.

12. I have considered the arguments raised by the

learned counsel for the parties and find that the learned

Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the

petitioner could not be impleaded as a party in the rent

petition in view of the admission of the tenant that the

respondent was his landlord. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court has been pleased to lay down that a person

though not owner is entitled to maintain the petition for

ejectment against the tenant provided it is proved that

he is landlord of the premises, which negatives the stand

of the learned counsel for the petitioner."

13. The decision in the case of Sheela (supra) relied upon by

learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner is distinguishable and would not be

applicable to the facts of the present case. The said decision was actually

dealing with a case under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act,

1961. Under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation

Control Act, 1961, a claim for eviction can be maintained by an owner-

landlord and not a landlord. Moreover, Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya

Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 pertains to eviction from a non-

residential building. There is no equivalent clause in the Rent Act under

integrity of this judgment/order.

2024:PHHC:042511

which the present ejectment application was filed and the property in

question in the present case is residential. Thus, under the Rent Act the

landlord need not be the owner of the premises. Section 12(1)(f) of the

Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 reads as under :

"12. Restriction on eviction of tenants. - (1)

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in

any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any

Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any

accommodation except on one or more of the following

grounds only namely :-

xxx xxx xxx

(f) that the accommodation let for non-residential

purpose is required bona- fide by the landlord for the

purpose of continuing or starting his business or that

any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is

the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit

the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such

person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential

accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city

or town concerned."

In comparison, Section 13(3)(a) of the Rent Act, which is relevant for

our purposes, reads as under :

(3)(a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an

order directing the tenant to put the landlord in

possession -

integrity of this judgment/order.



                                                                                     2024:PHHC:042511

                                              (i)    in the case of a residential building if -

                                              (a) he requires it for his own occupation;

(b) he is not occupying another residential building in

the urban area concerned; and

sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in

the said urban area;

(d) it was let to the tenant for use as a residence by

reason of his being in the service or employment of the

landlord, and the tenant has ceased, whether before or

after the commencement of this Act, to be in such service

or employment:

Provided that where the tenant is workman who has

been discharged or dismissed by the landlord from his

service or employment in contravention of the

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he shall

not be liable to be evicted until the competent authority

under that Act confirms the order of discharge or

dismissal made against him by the landlord."

14. A perusal of the above reproduced provisions of the Madhya

Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and the Rent Act make it patent

that it is the landlord who can seek eviction on the ground of personal

necessity under the Rent Act. Such landlord may or may not be the owner.

The argument of the counsel for the tenant-petitioner thus cannot be

accepted and is rejected.

integrity of this judgment/order.

2024:PHHC:042511

15. Counsel for the tenant-petitioner also argued that the landlord-

respondent is only a Sub Power of Attorney holder and the ground of

bonafide necessity is not available available to him. As already held above,

under the Rent Act it is the landlord who can seek eviction on the ground of