Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hans Raj vs Idol Of Shri Ram Chander Ji, Installed In ... on 10 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049638
115. 2024:PHHC:049638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.2167 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.04.2024
Hans Raj, aged about 69 years, son of Kartar Ram son of Isher Ram,
running his service station at Dulladi Gate, near Gau Shala, Nabha, District
Patiala
.... Petitioner
Versus
Idol of Shri Ram Chander Ji installed in Ram Mandir with Smadh Sarowali,
Dulladi Gate, Nabha, District Patiala, through its pujari Bishwa Vasu
(Advocate) son of Sadhu Ram Shastri, resident of Purana Hathi Khana,
Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH
Present: Mr. Harkirat Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
----
GURBIR SINGH, J.
1. Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated
27.02.2024 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Patiala, whereby appeal
filed by the tenant, petitioner herein, against the judgment dated 14.03.2023
passed by learned Rent Controller, Nabha, in a rent petition i.e. RP/11/2019
filed by the respondent-landlord for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the
ground of non-payment of rent as well as bona fide necessity, has been
dismissed.
2. It is submitted that the landlord is the pujari of the mandir and
the property, in question, is of mandir. Earlier, the rent was being paid to the
previous pujari and after his death, rent is being paid to the landlord. Learned
Rent Controller wrongly held that the tenant did not step into the witness-box
to oppose the case of the respondent, so adverse inference was required to be
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049638
Civil Revision No.2167 of 2024 (O&M) - 2 - 2024:PHHC:049638
drawn. The other evidence on the file was ignored. Jatinder Singh Shah,
PW-3, had admitted in his cross-examination that there is other passage for
ingress and egress to Usha Mata Public School and Kali Mata Mandir. Said
witness further stated that the passage at Mark-C and Mark-E as shown in
red ink can be made wider by demolishing the shop of mandir at point-F
shown with red ink in the site plan Ex.P2. RW1 Bhupinder Singh Sidhu,
approved Draftsman, Nabha, proved that there is other suitable place to
widen the passage to the temple and there is no need to get the shop vacated.
It is contended that the entire rent has been paid and there were no arrears,
however, both the issues have been wrongly decided against the tenant.
3. Notice of motion.
4. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate has caused appearance on behalf
of respondent as caveator and vakalatnama filed with the caveat on behalf of
the respondent is taken on record. He has stated, at the outset, that possession
of the demised premises has already been obtained by filing execution in the
court. There is no dispute with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties. Petitioner did not step into the witness-box. The burden
was on the petitioner-tenant to prove that entire rent was paid. No evidence
was led by the petitioner-tenant that there was no arrears of rent. A tenant
cannot guide the landlord to use the property in a particular manner. The
property is part of Ram Mandir.
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the file.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049638
Civil Revision No.2167 of 2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:049638
6. The relationship of landlord and tenant has been admitted by
the parties. The petitioner was inducted as tenant in the demised shop on
03.03.1994. The landlord claimed arrears @ Rs.450/- per month w.e.f.
01.04.2017 whereas the tenant has submitted that the rent has already been
paid up to 31.05.2018. The provisional rent was assessed w.e.f. 01.06.2018
to 28.02.2021. There is no dispute with regard to rate of rent. It is settled
law that payment of rent is to be proved by the tenant. Reference can be
made to judgments in Shamma Rani Versus Mohan Lal and another, Law
Finder Doc Id # 634363; Bal Krishan Versus Krishan Kumar Gupta, Law
Finder Doc Id # 16662; Kishori Lal Versus Hari Chand, Law Finder Doc
Id # 3713; Karpoori Thakur Versus Dewan Chand, Law Finder Doc Id #
3039 and Rajinder Kumar Vesus Jai Singh, Law Finder Doc Id # 16005.
Although the petitioner-tenant took a plea that he had paid the rent upto
31.05.2018, but no evidence was brought on the file that rent w.e.f.
01.04.2017 to 31.05.2018 stood paid. Even the petitioner-tenant did not step
into the witness-box to deny the said fact that rent for said period was not
due. There is neither any rent receipt nor any other evidence, so the learned
Rent Controller held that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent. It is
well settled that a landlord is the best judge of his own needs and tenant
cannot dictate terms to the landlord. The tenant relied upon the report of
RW1 Bhupinder Singh Sidhu, approved Draftsman, Nabha but same does
not inspire any confidence. Said report is with regard to other passage for
ingress and outgress to Usha Mata Public School and Kali Mata Mandir
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049638
Civil Revision No.2167 of 2024 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:049638
whereas the landlord requires the shop for expansion of the passage leading
to Ram Mandir, so necessity of the landlord cannot be doubted. Both the
courts below have rightly held so and this Court too does not find any
ground for interference. The revision petition is without any merit and it is
dismissed accordingly.
7. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(GURBIR SINGH)
JUDGE
April 10, 2024
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
