Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prince Lekhi vs Kuldeep Kaur on 15 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050357
CR-852-2024 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CR-852-2024 (O&M)
Date of reserve: 04.03.2024.
Date of Pronouncement: 15.04.2024.
Prince Lekhi ...Petitioner.
Versus
Kuldeep Kaur and others ....Respondents.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
----
Argued by: Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Abhay Singh, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
Sukhvinder Kaur, J.
By way of present revision petition, the petitioner has
challenged order dated 20.01.2024 (Annexure P-6), in RP/469/2022 vide
which learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, rejected the application filed by
respondent No.2 (petitioner herein) seeking opportunity to file separate
reply in petition under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
Act (for short, 'the Act').
2. The brief facts as per the rent petition are that respondents No.1
to 3/ landlords filed a petition for ejectment of the revision petitioner and
respondent No.4 under Section 13 of the Act, from two shops measuring
7'x15' and 12'x15' feet being property bearing No.B-19-1387, situated at
Rajpura Road, Tehsil and District Ludhiana on the ground of bonafide
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050357
CR-852-2024 (O&M) - 2-
requirement and arrears of rent. The said ejectment petition was filed on the
basis of rent agreements dated 10.06.2005 and 29.11.2006 allegedly
executed with the revision petitioner and respondent No.4 by Late Sham
Singh (landlord), the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 and 3. It
was alleged in the petition that Late Shri Sham Singh let out one shop
measuring 7'x15' feet to revision petitioner and respondent No.4 in the year
2005 on rent @ Rs.7500/- per month with the condition that rent will be
increased 5% every year as long as the tenants will keep the shop on rent.
Thereafter, another shop in the month of November, 2006 measuring 12'x15'
feet, adjacent to the present shop was let out vide rent agreement dated
29.11.2006 on rent @ of Rs.8500/- per month. The wall, which was between
the two shops, was removed with the consent of Late Sham Singh. The
revision petitioner and respondent No.4 after taking the shops on rent
started their business of dealership of Airtel Company under the name and
style of M/s Telezone. The rent was paid by the revision petitioner and
respondent No.4 from the accounts of M/s Telezone, their partnership
firm/business. It was further averred that in the year 2009, the revision
petitioner and respondent No.4 vacated one shop measuring 12'x15' feet and
handed over the possession to Late Sham Singh, who again let out the said
shop to them on the previously monthly rent basis. Harjot Singh Harikay i.e.
petitioner No.3, who is an advocate by profession and practicing as such in
the District & Sessions Courts, Ludhiana, started evening office at both the
said shops in dispute. Thereafter, the revision petitioner and respondent
No.4 shifted their business at Ramnagar, near Damoriya Bridge in the name
and style of Kundal Lal Communication in the year 2016-17. In spite of
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050357
CR-852-2024 (O&M) - 3-
vacating the shops, they took a complete somersault and started demanding
illegally Rs.10,00,000/- for vacating the demised premises. The revision
petitioner and respondent No.4 concealed this material fact in civil suit
titled as 'Deepali Sood and another Vs. Sham Singh and others' bearing
No.CS/4293/2018 against Late Sham Singh and his family members. It has
been alleged that after filing the false and frivolous case, they neither paid
nor tendered the arrears of rent to Late Sham Singh and his family members.
They have made the payment of rent up to July, 2018 and thereafter, they
have defaulted in paying the rent. Then it came to the notice of the
petitioners/ landlords that they have now started commercial business with
Vodafone company without the permission from the Court as well as from
the petitioners/ landlords, which is completely ultra vires the clause
mentioned in the rent agreement executed between the parties.
3. After the death of Sham Singh on 04.08.2020, the entire
property including the shops in dispute were inherited by the petitioners/
landlords as his legal heirs and mutation No.7845 was sanctioned in their
names. Three years before his death, Late Sham Singh requested them to
vacate the above said shops in dispute as he wanted to give the above said
shops in dispute to his younger son. So ejectment of the revision petitioner
and respondent No.4 was sought due to they being in arrears of rent as they
did not tender the arrears of rent @ Rs.20,000/- per month w.e.f. 10.07.2018
till date. It has also been alleged that the petitioners/ landlords bonafidely
require the shops in dispute for the use and occupation of petitioner No.3
i.e. Harjot Singh Harikay and they want to open an Advocate office for
petitioner No.3 in the shops in dispute. The shops in question are most
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050357
CR-852-2024 (O&M) - 4-
suitable to the petitioners/ landlords as these are centrally located on
Rajpura Road, Ludhiana, where clients can easily approach and there is
ample parking space available. The petitioners are not occupying any other
suitable commercial property within municipal limits of Ludhiana City
except one property situated at Bindraban Road, Ludhiana, in which the
petitioners are presently residing and one property situated near bus stand
Ludhiana, but both these properties are not suitable for starting Advocate
Office.
4. After notice in the aforesaid rent petition, the respondents (as
referred to in original petition) appeared and filed joint written statement.
Thereafter, during pendency of the rent petition, an application was filed by
respondent no.2 (petitioner herein) for granting permission to file a separate
reply on behalf of respondent No.2 to the petition under Section 13 of the
Act filed by the petitioners, on the averments that due to crisis in the Global
Market, on 31.03.2012, respondent No.2 left the company of respondent
No.1 by handing over the possession of the tenancy premises to respondent
No.1 and since then respondent No.1 is looking after the tenancy premises
as well as business completely and since then respondent No.2 has no
concern with the tenancy premises and it was further agreed that respondent
No.1 will pay the rent of the tenancy premises to the petitioners and to this
effect one dissolution deed was also reduced into writing between
respondents No.1, 2 and Davinder Singh Sood. In the year 2018, respondent
No.1 approached respondent No.2 and requested him to sign some
documents as she was having a dispute with landlord Sham Singh on the
pretext that since the rent deed was originally executed between the
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050357
CR-852-2024 (O&M) - 5-
applicant and respondent No.2 and Sham Singh, so the signatures of
respondent No.2 were required for filing suit for permanent injunction.
Respondent No.2 believed the version of respondent No.1 to be true and
correct and did not doubt the integrity of respondent No.1 and he singed on
the suit for permanent injunction and other documents required for filing the
suit. Thereafter, in the month of October, 2023, respondent No.2 received
summons through the Court regarding the case filed by respondent No.1 and
thereafter respondent No.2 inquired about the status from respondent No.1
and then respondent No.1 did not give satisfactory reply and thereafter he
engaged counsel and inquired about the litigation pending between
respondent No.1 and the petitioners and then he came to know that the
petitioners have filed the petition under Section 13 of the Act in which
respondent No.2 had been arrayed as party and rent has been claimed from
him. Respondent No.2 also came to know about the suit for permanent
injunction in which respondent No.2 was alleged as a tenant on the basis of
rent note whereas respondent No.2 has already vacated and handed over the
vacant possession of the tenancy premises on 31.03.2012, as per dissolution
deed. It was alleged that the rent whatever being paid by respondent No.1
was in her own capacity and respondent No.2 moved application to
withdraw the said suit qua him. So respondent No.2 has been left with no
interest, concern and title with the demised premises since 31.03.2012. It
was also alleged that the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3 in the rent
petition does not bear the signatures of respondent No.2 and he is not
having any knowledge of the filing of the said reply, so he was legally
entitled to file the separate reply to the present rent petition. It was
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050357
CR-852-2024 (O&M) - 6-
submitted that the version of the petitioners is totally false and frivolous
regarding claiming of rent from respondent No.2 and he is not liable to pay
such rent since 31.03.2012, so permission was sought from the Rent
Controller to file the separate reply in the rent petition.
5. Reply to the said application was filed by the petitioners
alleging that the respondents/tenants committed fraud not only with the
petitioner but also with the Court. They filed an injunction suit against the
present petitioner on 21.08.2018 by falsely mentioning the facts that the
present petitioner alongwith Late Sham Singh with the help of anti social
elements tried to dispossess Prince Lekhi and Deepali Sood forcibly and
illegally. Now Prince Lekhi took a complete somersault in the aforesaid
application dated 16.01.2024 and started alleging that he had already
handed over the tenancy premises on 31.03.2012 as per the alleged
dissolution deed. On the alleged wrong facts, the trial Court granted
injunction against the petitioner. It was further alleged that after having been
served in the present rent petition, Prince Lekhi, engaged Shri Ajay Chawla,
Advocate as his counsel and filed his duly signed Power of Attorney in the
Court and pursued the present rent petition with his counsel and also filed
the written reply of the present petition. When the case was at the stage of
assessing the rent then the respondent No.2 filed this false and frivolous
application for seeking permission to file a separate reply.
6. The aforesaid application filed by respondent No.2 for seeking
the permission to file separate reply in the rent petition was dismissed by the
Rent Controller, vide order dated 20.01.2024. Aggrieved against the said
order, the revision petitioner (respondent No.2 before Rent Controller) has
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050357
CR-852-2024 (O&M) - 7-
filed the present revision petition before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that
by filing a separate reply before the Rent Controller, the petitioner
(respondent No.2) wanted to bring the material fact on record that he had
left his joint business from the demised premises in the year 2012, so he is
not liable to pay any such rent and he has nothing to do with the demised
premises since 31.03.2012. But while passing the impugned order, the said
prayer has been declined by the Rent Controller, which has caused serious
prejudice to the revision petitioner (respondent No.2). He has contended
that since the petitioners/landlords are claiming arrears of rent w.e.f. July,
2018 onwards in their eviction petition, therefore having regard to ceasing
of tenancy of the revision petitioner, no claim of petitioners/landlords
survives either for arrears of rent or ejectment from both the shops against
the revision petitioner. He has further contended that the earlier reply filed
to the rent petition is only signed by respondent No.4, so it cannot be
considered to be the defence statement of the revision petitioner. The
revision petitioner has an independent right to defend his case. The revision
petitioner has also withdrawn the said civil suit for permanent injunction
dated 16.01.2024 filed on behalf of respondent No.4 in the year 2018
against the petitioners/ landlords. He has submitted that the Rent Controller
has committed great illegality in not granting an opportunity to the
petitioner to defend his right and interest by filing separate reply to the rent
petition, which is violation of the principles of natural justice. He has
contended that as such impugned order dated 20.01.2024 limiting the right
of the petitioner by declining his application to file separate written reply is
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050357
CR-852-2024 (O&M) - 8-
totally illegal, cryptic, perverse and unsustainable under the law. In support
of his contentions, he had relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Bharat Kalra Vs. Raj Kishan Chabra, 2023 (3) PLR 346;
Siddalingayya Vs. Gurulingappa and others, 2018 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 543
and Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002
(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 has
filed the written submissions. He has contended that after having filed a
joint written statement alongwith respondent No.4 before the Rent
Controller, present petitioner cannot withdraw the same to file a fresh and
separate written statement. He has further contended that the revision
petitioner alongwith respondent No.4 has been jointly pursuing the matter
before the Rent Controller and both were being represented by same counsel
and revision petitioner also appended his signatures on multifarious
applications filed along with respondent No.4. The revision petitioner has
earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction with regard to property in
dispute, so the revision petitioner cannot be allowed to alter his admission
made in the written statement dated 22.08.2023. In support of his
contentions, he has placed reliance upon decisions in Thakorbhai Haribhai
Patel Vs. Shree Dakshin Gujarat Ahir Samaj Seva Sangh and others,
2010 (8) R.C.R. (Civil) 2573; Sameermal Runwal Vs. Prakashchandra
Kothari and others, 2011(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 512 and Kallampudi
Narayanappsa Vs. Kaligotla Suryanarayana and others, 1950 AIR
(Madras) 46.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050357
CR-852-2024 (O&M) - 9-
through the relevant record.
10. Order 8 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure deals with written
statement, set off and counter claim, which reads as under:-
"[Written Statement, Set-Off and Counter Claim]
Written Statement:- The defendant shall, within thirty
days from the date of service of summons on him, present a
written statement of his defence:
Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written
statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be
allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified
by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which
shall not later than ninety days from the date of service of
summons."
11. But there is no such provision in the CPC for cancelling or
setting aside a written statement filed and substituting it with a fresh one. In
the instant case, the revision petitioner is seeking substitution of the earlier
written statement on record by filing a fresh one by cancelling or setting
aside the earlier written statement that is already on record. The revision
petitioner has not sought amendment in the written statement, rather he
wants to set at naught the earlier written statement by filing a fresh one.
12. The perusal of the record reveals that a detailed written
statement was filed on behalf of the revision petition and respondent No.4
before the Rent Controller. The perusal of the said written statement reveals
that in the head note itself, it has been mentioned " Written Statement on
behalf of the respondents". Though this written statement has been signed
only by respondent No.1 Deepali Sood, yet it is immaterial, as the written
statement dated 22.08.2023, contains signatures of respondent No.4 as well
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050357
CR-852-2024 (O&M) - 10-
as signatures of the Advocate engaged by revision petitioner. From the
perusal of record, it also transpires that the revision petitioner was pursuing
the matter jointly with respondent No.4. They were being represented by the
same counsel before the Rent Controller. Besides that, revision petitioner
has appended his signatures on various applications filed along with
respondent No.4. In the impugned order, it has also been specifically
mentioned that even transfer application before the District and Sessions
Judge, Ludhiana had been filed by them jointly. Moreover, the revision
petitioner had jointly filed a suit for permanent injunction bearing
No.CS/4293/2018, regarding the same property in dispute in 2018 alleging
that the petitioners/ landlords alongwith Late Sham Singh with the help of
anti social elements tried to dispossess Prince Lekhi and Deepali Sood
forcibly and illegally from the demised premises. Thus, the revision
petitioner took a complete somersault in the present application dated
16.01.2024 while alleging that he had already handed over the vacant
possession of tenancy premises on 31.03.2012 as per the alleged dissolution
deed.
13. So, from the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is
clearly made out that the written statement dated 22.08.2023 that has been
filed before the Rent Controller had been jointly filed on behalf of the
revision petitioner and respondent No.4. There is no provision in the CPC
for cancelling or setting aside the written statement already filed
substituting it with a fresh one. As the earlier statement had been filed under
Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, it cannot be said that Order 8 Rule 1 CPC would apply
for substitution of a fresh written statement in the place of the one already
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050357
CR-852-2024 (O&M) - 11-
filed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. The judgments cited by learned counsel for
the respondents squarely cover the present case. However, the case law cited
by counsel for the revision petitioner is of no help to him being not
applicable to the facts of the case in hand, as all these cases are pertaining to
the facts where the written statement could not be filed within the time limit
prescribed for filing of the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC.
14. Thus, there being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order no interference therewith is called for while exercising the revisional
jurisdiction. The present revision petition being bereft of any merits stands
dismissed.
15. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
15.04.2024.
komal
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
11 of 11
