Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Lal vs Suresh Kumar Dhir Attorney Holder Of ... on 4 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045751
CR-7750-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045751
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
119 2024:PHHC:045751
CR-7750-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.04.2024
TARSEM LAL ..Petitioner
Versus
SURESH KUMAR DHIR ATTORNEY HOLDER
OF SHAKUNTLA DHIR ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate
for respondent.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. The petitioner herein is the tenant who has been ordered to be
evicted by the Court of Rent Controller, which in appeal has been affirmed
by the Appellate Authority. The scope of interference in a revision petition is
extremely limited as delineated in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited Vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78.
2. The learned counsel representing the petitioner has made the
following submissions:-
i. The landlady has not stepped into the witness box,
hence, adverse inference was required to be drawn against
her.
ii. The requirement was for son and daughter-in-law of
the landlady, however, they also did not step into the
witness box.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045751
CR-7750-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045751
iii. The necessary ingredients under Section 13 of the East
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, with respect to
the son and daughter-in-law having been pleaded in the
petition.
iv. The sale deed has been proved at the final stage of the
petition.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent
submits that late Smt. Ram Piari Bedi was owner of the property. She sold
the property through registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner namely
Smt. Shakuntla Dhir. He submits that landlady's husband stepped into the
witness box, who answered all the questions. He was not a stranger and he
was in knowledge of all the facts. The landlady has produced sufficient
evidence. Hence, there is occasion to draw adverse inference. He further
submits that husband of the landlady has categorically stated that the parents
want to settle their son and daughter-in-law, who are unemployed. He
submits that the rent petition is required to be decided on preponderance of
evidence and it is not necessary that all the persons from whom the
requirement is pleaded himself appear in evidence. He relies upon the
judgment passed in Arun Kumar Vs. Des Raj Tandon (since deceased)
through LR, 2018(2) RCR (Rent) 491, in reply to submission No.(iii).
4. With regard to submission No.(iv), he submits that Smt.
Shakuntla Dhir has purchased the property by a registered sale deed from
Smt. Ram Piari Bedi, who had given the property on lease to the petitioner.
He submits that in the rent proceeding, which are summary in nature, the
Court is not required to decide question of title.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045751
CR-7750-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045751
5. This Court has considered the submissions.
6. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, enables the Court
to presume existence of certain facts, which includes drawing of adverse
inference particularly when the evidence which could be and is not produced
would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. Such
presumption can be drawn only if the party intentionally withholds the best
evidence.
7. In each and every case, mere non-appearance of
landlady/landlord in the witness box would not necessarily require the Court
to draw adverse inference. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of
the present case. In this case, the landlady's husband, who is also residing
with her, has appeared in evidence. He has answered all the questions, which
were put to him in his cross-examination. In these circumstances, the Courts
have not erred in refusing to draw adverse inference.
8. The same is the answer to submission no.(ii), particularly, the
petitioner's tenant has failed to prove that the son or the daughter-in-law own
any other property or they are employed.
9. With regard to submission no.(iii), the answer has already been
given in Arun Kumar's case (supra) in the following manner:-
"22. It may be noted that as per the Act of 1949, no
format of the petition has been prescribed. However,
Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Banke
Ram Vs. Sarasti Devi, AIR 1977 P&H 158, has held that
it is necessary for the landlord to plead these three
ingredients. It is also well settled that after the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench, various judgments
have been pronounced taking a view that once three
ingredients as required have been proved on file, the
petition would not be dismissed merely on the ground that
the ingredients have not been pleaded in the pleadings.
As noticed in the earlier part of the judgment, the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045751
CR-7750-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045751
expression "for his own occupation" has been interpreted
to mean and include normal emanations of the landlord.
The question which is required to be answered is whether
it is incumbent upon the landlord to make assertion about
the bona fide necessity of the dependent in terms of
Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act of 1949. There is no dispute
that the requirements of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act of
1949 have to be pleaded with requisite respect to the
landlord.
23. In the considered view of this Court, such requirement
cannot be said to be pleaded necessary with respect to the
relations for whom the eviction is being sought by the
landlord who fall within the definition of the word
"emanation" as interpreted by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court. However, the tenant would be at liberty to bring to
the notice of the Court that the person for whose
necessity the eviction is being sought is either occupying
another building or has vacated any such building
without sufficient cause. The petitions cannot be
dismissed only on account of the fact that there is no
pleadings with respect to the relative of the landlord in
terms of Section 13 of the Act of 1949. The Court would
be required to examine in each case whether the landlord
or the person for whose bona fide requirement eviction is
pleaded fulfills the requirement of the Act or not.
Therefore, as a abstract proposition of the law, it cannot
be held that it is mandatory to plead in the petition all the
three requirements of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act of
1949.
24. If such interpretation is taken, it would even go
against the well settled interpretation which is being
followed by the Court even with regard to the landlord.
The basic object under the Act is to test the bona fide
requirement of the landlord or his normal emanations. A
particular form of pleadings has neither been envisaged
in the Act nor any particular format has been provided
for. Accordingly, question No.1 is answered."
10. The submission No.(iv) of the learned counsel representing the
petitioner also lacks substance because the rent proceedings are summary
and the landlord is not required to prove his title as in the civil case. It is not
in dispute that the petitioner's suit for specific performance of the agreement
to sell has already been dismissed by the trial Court against which, the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045751
CR-7750-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045751
appeal is pending and the relationship of the landlord and tenant has not been
specifically denied.
11. With these observations, the present petition is dismissed.
12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
April 04th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
