Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd And ... vs Rajinder Singh And Ors on 23 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055662
CR-8123-2017 (O&M) & 2024:PHHC:055662
CR-8859-2017
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
116
1. CR-8123-2017 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.04.2024
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD AND ANR
..Petitioners
Versus
RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS
..Respondents
2. CR-8859-2017 (O&M)
HARMEET SINGH
..Petitioner
Versus
RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CR-8123-2017).
Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Chandan Singh, Advocate
and Mr. Gurpreet S. Brar, Advocate
for petitioner (in CR-8859-2017).
Mr. Piyushkant Jain, Advocate
and Ms. Komaljit Kaur, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. These two connected civil revision petitions have been filed by
the tenant and licensor under the tenant to challenge the correctness of
eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, which in appeal has been
affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Sewak Bus and Transport Company
Pvt. Ltd. was the owner of the commercial plot, which was leased out to
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055662
CR-8123-2017 (O&M) & 2024:PHHC:055662
CR-8859-2017
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 30.06.1988. The contractual period of
tenancy came to an end on 30.06.1998. In the beginning, Sewak Bus and
Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. filed petition seeking ejectment of the
petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent and the petitioner has sublet
the premises to its dealer, which was dismissed on 06.11.2003. In the
meantime, by virtue of as many as six sale deeds, Sewak Bus and Transport
Company Pvt. Ltd. sold the property to the respondent namely Sh. Rajinder
Singh, who filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction Act, 1949 on 25.03.2009, claiming that he requires the premises
for his bonafide necessity as he wants to open office of the finance company
and tyre shop-cum-residence for his son. He also claims that the tenant is
liable to be evicted on account of non-payment of rent with effect from
01.06.1999.
2. The petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant on
the ground that Sh. J.P. Jhanji has filed a suit to challenge the sale deeds and
previous petition filed by the owner has been dismissed. It was claimed that
the rent stands paid and the landlord did not have bonafide requirement.
3. Both the Courts allowed the petition while ordering ejectment.
4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner in CR-8123-
2017, contends that there is a cloud on the respondents' title because the sale
deed in their favour is subject matter of challenge in a separate suit filed by
Sh. J.P. Jhanji. He submits that the sale deed has been executed during the
pendency of stay and therefore, the sale deeds are void and he is entitled to
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055662
CR-8123-2017 (O&M) & 2024:PHHC:055662
CR-8859-2017
challenge the landlord's derivative title in this petition. He relies upon the
judgment passed in Bismillah Be (dead) through LRs Vs. Majeed Shah,
2017 AIR (SC) 206 and a Single Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in M. Sarojini Devi (died) through LRs and others Vs. Jugal
Kishore Sanghi, 2011 (45) R.C.R. (Civil) 853.
6. He further contends that the respondent's son is a partner in two
firms and therefore, he is not dependant upon the respondent. Sh. Baltej
Singh Sidhu, learned Senior counsel representing licensee from Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. submits that the respondent purchased the
property with open eyes. On the date of the sale, it was known to the
respondent that a fuel station is running. Hence, the ground of bonafide
necessity is not available to him.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent No.1
submits that even if the petitioner is permitted to challenge the derivative
title, still, he has failed to make out a case with regard to the defect in title.
He submits that as many as six sale deeds have been executed by the Sewak
Bus and Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Sh. Rajinder Singh, which
have not been set aside by any Court of law. He further submits that a plaint
filed by Sh. J.P. Jhanji was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, against which an appeal is pending.
8. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
9. It may be noted here that the judgment passed in Bismillah Be's
case (supra) lays down that the tenant is entitled to question the derivative
title of landlord (lessor), unless, the lessee has attorned in favour of
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055662
CR-8123-2017 (O&M) & 2024:PHHC:055662
CR-8859-2017
transferee/vendee. However, in this case, the petitioner has failed to prove
that there is any defect in the sale deeds executed by the Sewak Bus and
Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. The learned counsel representing the petitioner
submits that these sale deeds were executed during the pendency of interim
order passed by the Civil Court. He refers to the entries in the revenue record
dated 06.10.1993 and 27.11.1997. The petitioner has not produced the
primary evidence i.e. the injunction order. The entry in the revenue record
would not prove that there was any absolute stay restraint on the owner to
alienate its property. Moreover, the life of injunction order comes to an end
with the decision of the suit. Even, if the sale deed has been executed in
violation of the injunction, it may lead to punishment, however, it does not
affect the validity of the sale deed. This issue has already been examined in
detail by this Court in CR-4248-2018 and other connected case titled as
Mam Kaur Vs. Daya Ram and another, decided on 26.09.2023.
10. The second argument of the learned counsel representing the
Company lacks substance because the parents fill that it is their
responsibility to settle their children. In that process, if the landlord seeks
eviction for requirement of his son, there is no illegality. In any case, the
respondent Sh. Rajinder Singh has also sought eviction for his own
necessity.
11. Similarly, the argument of Sh. Baltej Singh Sidhu, learned
Senior counsel representing the petitioner in CR-8859-2017, has no
substance because the sale deeds are between 08.05.1997 to 24.05.1999,
whereas, the ejectment petition was filed after a passage of 10 years i.e. in
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055662
CR-8123-2017 (O&M) & 2024:PHHC:055662
CR-8859-2017
the year 2009. Ten years is a long period, in which the requirement of the
parties change.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no ground to interfere
is made out.
13. Consequently, both the petitions are dismissed accordingly.
14. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
April 23rd, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
