Ram Gopal vs Rekha Tyagi
2024 Latest Caselaw 8361 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ram Gopal vs Rekha Tyagi on 22 April, 2024

Author: Archana Puri

Bench: Archana Puri

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053458




                                                              2024:PHHC:053458
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


                                          (i)                CR-360-2017 (O&M)

Ram Gopal
                                                                        ...Petitioner

                                          Versus

Rekha Tyagi
                                                                      ...Respondent

                                          (ii)               CR-867-2017 (O&M)

Som Nath
                                                                        ...Petitioner

                                          Versus

Rekha Tyagi
                                                                     ...Respondents


                                                   Date of Decision: April 22, 2024


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

Present:      Mr.Divanshu Jain, Advocate
              for the petitioner (in CR-360-2017).

              Mr.Vinay Pandey, Advocate
              for the petitioner (in CR-867-2017).

              Mr.Amandeep Vashisht, Advocate
              for the respondent.

                    ****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

These are two revision petitions filed to challenge the

concurrent findings of learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority,

passed in two ejectment petitions, thereby, ordering and affirming, eviction

1 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053458

2024:PHHC:053458 CR-360-2017 and connected case -2-

of the petitioners Ram Gopal and Som Nath, from two adjoining shops.

There are identical facts in both the petitions. As such, the

facts, germane to be noticed, are as follows:-

That, the respondent-landlady filed eviction petition, vis-a-vis, two

adjoining shops, to evict petitioners-tenants Ram Gopal and Som Nath

respectively, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent @ Rs.4000/-

per month, since 05.06.2003. However, as she could not claim arrears of

rent more than three years, as such, she confined the arrears of rent for the

last three years i.e. 01.02.2011 to 31.01.2014, plus interest.

Besides the aforesaid ground, qua both the shops, the landlady

also took the ground of requirement of the shop for bonafide personal use to

run boutique, as she does not have an other property in her possession,

which is more suitable place for the boutique purposes.

In the petitions, it was asserted that the shops in question were

in possession of the respective tenants previously under Sh.Pushkar Dutt

Tyagi, who was father-in-law of the present respondent-landlady and who

had since expired. She became the owner of the demised shops by virtue of

Lok Adalat Award dated 23.11.2013. Many a times, she requested the

tenants to pay the arrears of rent and vacate and handover the actual

possession of the shops. She also served notice dated 09.01.2014 upon the

tenants, but to no heed. Hence, the ejectment petitions.

However, in the respective replies, the petitioners-tenants

resisted the claim of the landlady. They admitted about the shops in

question, having rented out by Sh.Pushkar Dutt Tyagi. They also asserted

2 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053458

2024:PHHC:053458 CR-360-2017 and connected case -3-

about Rekha Tyagi to be not having a right to file and maintain the petitions.

Also, they asserted about the monthly rent to be Rs.250/-, since 1988,

inclusive of house tax extra and they had paid the rent to Sh.Pushkar Dutt

Tyagi and deposited upto 25.12.2008, vide challan No.77, dated 24.12.2008,

in the Court in a rent petition filed by Animesh Tyagi, which was decided on

25.02.2011. They denied about Rekha Tyagi to be the landlady of the shops

in question and also asserted about her to be having no legal necessity for

her personal use. The alleged decree/Award, if any, was got suffered only to

create false grounds.

Issues were framed and evidence was adduced by the rival parties.

On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, both the

petitions were allowed and the ejectment was ordered of the respective

tenants.

To challenge the ejectment orders, respective appeals were filed

by both the tenants Ram Gopal and Som Nath and vide judgments dated

21.11.2016, learned Appellate Authority had dismissed both the appeals.

Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitions in hand, were filed.

Learned counsel for the parties heard.

So far as, the relationship of landlady and tenants between the

parties to the lis is concerned, the same was denied by both the petitioners-

tenants. Though, they admitted about the shops having rented out to them by

Sh.Pushkar Dutt Tyagi, but denied about present respondent Rekha Tyagi, to

have become owner and in that capacity, being landlady. However, suffice

to consider the shops in question, having fallen to the share of Rekha Tyagi,

3 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053458

2024:PHHC:053458 CR-360-2017 and connected case -4-

by way of family settlement, on the basis whereof, Award was passed by

learned Lok Adalat on 23.11.2013, copy whereof is Ex.A2. Thereupon,

Rekha Tyagi-landlady, had issued notice dated 09.01.2014, copy whereof is

Ex.A3, thereby, intimating both the tenants about manner of herself stepping

into the shoes of the previous landlord by virtue of settlement, which

culminated into Award passed by Lok Adalat on 23.11.2013. Further therein,

she had asked the tenants to make payment of arrears of rent and also to

handover the vacant possession of the demised shops, while asserting her

personal necessity to run boutique, in the premises in question i.e. both the

shops. Reply to the said notice was filed, copy whereof is Ex.A5.

Very appropriately, both these documents have been considered by

learned Courts below, to conclude about Rekha Tyagi to have become the

owner of the shops in question and also about due intimation, having given

to the tenants, to whom by virtue of notice, she had apprised about they

being in arrears of rent and her bonafide need of the demised shops.

Furthermore, to rule out any kind of dispute between legal heirs

of Sh.Pushkar Dutt Tyagi and the tenants, making payment of rent, learned

Courts referred to the cross-examination of the tenants, when they stepped

into witness box, in the respective ejectment petitions, wherein, they have

denied about any other legal heir, asserting or claiming arrears of rent or at

any point of time, claiming ownership of the demised shops.

Learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority appraised the

evidence in correct perspective to conclude about the ownership of the

demised shops by Rekha Tyagi, on the basis of the Award dated 23.11.2013

4 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053458

2024:PHHC:053458 CR-360-2017 and connected case -5-

and also about the tenants, not being within their right to dispute about the

family settlement, on the basis whereof, aforesaid Award was passed.

Considering the aforesaid, learned Rent Controller and

Appellate Authority had rightly concluded about there to be existing

relationship of landlady and tenants between the parties to the lis and

respondent-landlady to be having locus standi to file the ejectment petitions.

So far as, arrears of rent is concerned, from the evidence

adduced, it stands amply established that the rent was Rs.250/- per month

and it was paid upto 25.12.2008, as held, in the petition filed by Animesh

Tyagi, who is husband of Rekha Tyagi, which was decided on 25.02.2011.

Even, the tenants have asserted about rent to be Rs.250/- per month. In their

cross-examination, both the tenants have admitted that the rent having not so

paid, even at this rate, on which account, it was rightly concluded by learned

Courts, about both the tenants to be in arrears of rent, for the period

01.02.2011 to 31.01.2014.

Since, the relationship of landlady and tenants has been denied,

therefore, the petitioners-tenants had foregone their right to call upon the

Rent Controller to assess the rent and grant an opportunity to pay the arrears

of rent. Very rightly, learned Courts had held about the Rent Controller to be

under no obligation to assess the provisional rent, as a tenant denying the

relationship of landlady and tenant, asserts a positive right, not to tender rent

and therefore, cannot fall back upon the ratio in Rakesh Wadhawan's case.

Rakesh Wadhawan vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) RCR (Rent) 514

5 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053458

2024:PHHC:053458 CR-360-2017 and connected case -6-

Where a tenant proceeds to dispute the locus standi or

ownership of the landlord and thereupon, denies the relationship of the

landlord and tenant, such a tenant, in essence, asserts a positive plea of

refusal to tender rent. Whether, such a tenant would be entitled to protection

of Section 13 of the Act, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra), has been answered in a numerous

judgments. Beneficial reference is made to the Ramanand Shashtri vs.

Gian Singh, 2003(1) RCR (Rent) 735 and the relevant observations, made

therein, are as follows:-

"I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner and am of the view that the same are devoid of merit. The first submission that the tenant-petitioner was entitled to an order of assessment by the Rent Controller in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan (supra) would not require any detailed consideration because in cases where the tenant disputes the relationship of landlord and tenant it is not expected of the Rent Controller to pass an assessment order of rent directing the tenant to pay that rent. In such cases, exercise to be taken by the Rent Controller would be futile and would rather go contrary to the stand of the parties. After all framing of assessment order is not a mere ritual by the Rent Controller that in every case the Rent Controller must pass such an order. Moreover, even if the Rent Controller passes such an order and the tenant maintains his stand of denying the relationship then he cannot be asked to pay the rent. It would also be unjust that the tenant would first get the finding of subsisting relationship and then deposit the rent. Such a course would also be unfair and unjust to the landlord-respondent. Therefore, I have no

6 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053458

2024:PHHC:053458 CR-360-2017 and connected case -7-

hesitation in rejecting the first argument raised by the learned counsel."

Similarly, it was so held in Yash Pal Singh' case, Narinder

Singh's case and Jasbir Singh's case, which also found reference in

Mrs.Preeti vs. Manmohan Singh and another, CR-3539-2006, decided

on 07.01.2008.

In the case in hand, as already observed aforesaid, ample

evidence is coming forth, about the respondent-landlady Rekha Tyagi, to

have stepped into the shoes of previous landlord as rights of ownership had

flown to her, on the basis of Award passed by learned Lok Adalat, on the

basis of family settlement earlier reached. Relating to Rekha Tyagi having

become the landlady, due notice was also given to the tenants, to which they

had filed reply. Consequential cross-examination was also conducted, vis-a-

vis, rights having flown to Rekha Tyagi and none of the legal heirs of

Sh.Pushkar Dutt Tyagi, having questioned her capacity, being landlady or

claimed ownership in the shops in question.

Considering the evidence, so brought on record, learned Courts

have rightly concluded about there to be existing relationship of landlady

and tenants, between the parties to the lis and thus, on this account, the

objection, as to the locus standi of the respondent-landlady to file the

ejectment proceedings, was therefore a malafide attempt, to evade the duty

to pay the rent, to deprive the landlady of the rent. Thus, the plea of tenants,

Yash Pal Singh vs. Vijay Kumar, 2004(1) RCR (Rent) 718 Narinder Singh vs. Sarabjit Since, 2006(2) RCR (Rent) 226 Jagdish Singh vs. Mohan Lal, 2004(2) RCR (Rent) 114

7 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053458

2024:PHHC:053458 CR-360-2017 and connected case -8-

is therefore, hollow and lacks bonafide. Such being the observation

coming, there was no necessity for assessment of the provisional rent and

precisely, on this account, learned Courts below, concluded about the

tenants, liable to be ejected, on the ground of arrears of rent. The findings,

on this count, as such, are affirmed.

Now, coming to the second ground of ejectment, which is

requirement of the two adjoining shops for bonafide personal necessity. It is

the categoric claim of the respondent-landlady about the personal necessity

of two adjoining shops to run a boutique. However, in the respective replies

to the ejectment petitions, it is claimed that other commercial property

bearing No.B-4/2132/7/2173/D/2202 is available with the landlady together

with her husband, which has been concealed. It is now submitted by learned

counsel for the petitioners that landlady possesses numerous other properties

and it is fatal to her claim for personal necessity, as amiss has been given to

the said properties.

However, it is pertinent to mention that in the petitions, it has

been categorically stated by the landlady that she is not occupying any other

non-residential building, in the urban area i.e. corporation limits of MC,

Yamunanagar, nor has vacated any such building, without sufficient cause,

after the commencement of 1949 Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have made reference to

various documents, which have been tendered into evidence by the tenants,

thereby, depicting about the numerous properties, owned by landlady and

her family. They further referred to the assessment register, with regard to

8 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053458

2024:PHHC:053458 CR-360-2017 and connected case -9-

property bearing No.B-4/2132/7/2173/D/2202, copy whereof is Ex.D3 and

the same reflects Animesh Tyagi and Rekha Tyagi, as owners of the said

property.

Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to make mention

that 'need', so projected by the landlady, ought to be presumed to be correct

and genuine. Learned Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption

that the 'need' projected is not bonafide.

Learned Appellate Authority in the impugned judgment dated

21.11.2016, has made elaborate reference to the documents to Ex.D3 to

Ex.D9. As per copy of the assessment register of the Municipal Corporation

for the year 2011-12, copy whereof is Ex.D2, relating to the property bearing

No.B5/1289, Avinash Tyagi and Pushkar Dutt, are shown to be the owners of

the property. Likewise, assessment register entry of property bearing No. B-

4/2132/7/2173/D/2202, the mention whereof, is made in reply to the main

petitions, reflects the ownership of the property in the names of Animesh

Tyagi and Rekha Tyagi. Ex.D4 relates to the property bearing No.B-

4/2131/F, of which Animesh Tyagi is the owners. Ex.D5 relates to property

B-4/2131/D. Herein also, Animesh Tyagi and Avinash Chander are owners

of this property. As per copy of the assessment register Ex.D6, the landlady

is recorded to be joint owner of the residential property, with Animesh and

Akshay. In the copy of assessment register Ex.D7, Rekha Tyagi is not

reflected to be owner of the property and the names of owners are Animesh

Tyagi and Akshya Tyagi. Likewise Ex.D8 and D9 are the property tax bills,

which are also in the joint names of Animesh Tyagi, Akshya Tyagi and

9 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053458

2024:PHHC:053458 CR-360-2017 and connected case -10-

Rekha Tyagi.

Considering the aforesaid documents, it has been appropriately

concluded by learned Courts below about Rekha Tyagi to have never been

found to be exclusive and sole owner, in occupation of any commercial

property to meet her requirement. She has specifically so pleaded in the

petition and also in her affidavit, which was tendered into evidence as

Ex.AW1/A. More particularly, it is pertinent to mention that in the Lok

Adalat Award dated 23.11.2013, in the headnote of the suit, there is mention

about the plaintiff Akshya Tyagi, to be owner of half share of the building

bearing No.B-4/2132/7/2173/D/2202, the reference whereof, was made by

the tenants, in their respective replies.

From the Award, one cannot decipher as to whether, this half

share, related to Rekha Tyagi or of her husband Animesh Tyagi, who are

reflected, as owners in the assessment register entry of the year 2011-2012,

copy whereof is Ex.D3. It was incumbent upon the tenants to have clarified

such situation, so as to facilitate knowing about the right of the landlady in

the said property and the occupation of the same by her. However, no such

evidence has been adduced. Rather, no cross-examination qua this property

has been conducted. Even, the tenants in the minimum, to dislodge the claim

of the landlady, could have produced the copy of the petition, relating to

which Award dated 23.11.2013 was passed, but they did not do so. Nowhere

cross-examination was conducted qua any of the properties, of which Ex.D2

to Ex.D9 are the documents, tendered into evidence, to substantiate the

exclusive possession of the landlady in the same.

                                10 of 12

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053458




                                                          2024:PHHC:053458
CR-360-2017 and connected case                                      -11-

In the given circumstances, the question of some of the

properties of the landlady lying vacant or being in her possession, as such,

does not stand established and the suitability as asserted, could have arisen

thereafter. Properties owned by multiple persons, more particularly, when

not established to be in exclusive possession of the landlady, would

obviously be inconvenient, in the minimum, to initiate business, on the basis

of the projected 'need'. It is quite obvious that the other co-sharers, even be

family members, may not agree for excessive user of the joint property by

the respondent-landlady and they may be interested to let out the same, to

make themselves entitled to proportionate rent of the said properties.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, even if, husband of the

landlady, may be in possession of the properties, this ipso facto, cannot be

considered to be in possession of the respondent-landlady, having an option

to initiate her business of boutique in the same.

Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners have also

submitted that the property, which was was earlier rented out by Rekha

Tyagi and her family members to M/s Amar Tex Industries, was also got

evicted, by way of filing of the petition and copy of the ejectment order is

Ex.D15. It was during the pendency of the appeals before learned Appellate

Authority that this property was rented out, by virtue of a lease deed, copy

whereof is Annexure P-5. An application for additional evidence was filed

by the petitioners-tenants and the same was dismissed, on the same very day,

when the appeals were decided by learned Appellate Authority, relating to

the demised shops. This order is also under challenge in the present revision

11 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053458

2024:PHHC:053458 CR-360-2017 and connected case -12-

petitions.

No doubt, the lease deed dated 15.10.2015 was executed qua

the ejected property, but however, it was also the joint property and as such,

stood on the same footing, as the other properties and therefore, the eviction

of the said property and renting out further, by virtue of lease deed, in

question, would not matter much, as it was joint property and not established

to be in exclusive possession of the respondent-landlady.

Considering the same, the dismissal of the application for

additional evidence, as such, matters not much.

In this backdrop, looking at the testimony of respondent-

landlady, her need has correctly been held to be genuine and bonafide.

Learned Rent Controller has correctly passed the ejectment orders on two

pleaded grounds and the same have been affirmed by learned Appellate

Authority. In these circumstances, the impugned orders warrants no

interference, while exercising revisional jurisdiction.

Hence, both the revision petitions are hereby dismissed.

April 22, 2024                                        (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati                                                   JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned                      Yes
             Whether reportable                             Yes/No




                               12 of 12