Punjab-Haryana High Court
Poonam Rani And Anr vs Ashok Kumar Verma on 6 August, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100765
CR-371-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(130)
CR-371-2024
Date of decision: - 06.08.2024
Poonam Rani and another
....Petitioners
Versus
Ashok Kumar Verma
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, and
Ms. Manvi Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India read with Haryana Urban Rent Restrictions Act,
1973 (for short 'Act of 1973') for setting aside the order dated 03.11.2023
(Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal in Civil
Appeal No.119 of 2022 and for restoration of the order dated 26.10.2022
(Annexure P-7) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein had filed
an application for ejectment under Section 13 of the Act of 1973 (as
amended up to date) against the present petitioners with respect to a
double storey residential house, on the plea that the tenanted premises
was earlier owned and possessed by petitioner No.1 herein and was sold
to Sangeeta Rani daughter of the respondent herein for a consideration of
Rs.8,70,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 12.01.2017 and the present
petitioners were tenants under the landlady, namely, Sangeeta Rani and
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100765
the said Sangeeta Rani had further transferred the ownership of the
tenanted premises in favour of the respondent, vide registered transfer
deed dated 30.10.2017. It was further pleaded that since the respondent
herein had become owner of the tenanted premises and the present
petitioners were occupying the same as tenants, thus, they became tenants
of the respondent. The eviction of the present petitioners was sought on
the ground of non-payment of rent and also on the ground of personal
necessity.
3. The written statement was filed in the said case on behalf of
the petitioners, which is annexed as Annexure P-3. The replication was
also filed to the said written statement and a copy of the same has been
annexed as Annexure P-4. Thereafter, the application under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC was filed for rejection of the plaint by the petitioners and the said
application has been annexed as Annexure P-5. The Rent Controller,
Kaithal, vide order dated 26.10.2022 has allowed the said application.
4. On an appeal filed against the said order by the respondent,
the 1st Appellate Court vide a detailed order dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure
P-1) allowed the same and dismissed the application filed by the
petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. While allowing the said
application, the 1st Appellate Court had observed that the Rent Controller,
Kaithal had erred by relying upon the defence of the respondent in order
to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, inasmuch as, it was
settled law that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC, it is the averments made in the plaint which are required to be
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100765
considered and not the averments made in the written statement. In the
said regard, reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case titled as "Soumitra Kumar Sen Vs. Shyamal Kumar Sen
and others", reported as 2018(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 223 (SC) and other
judgments. It was further observed that although, in the sale deed in
favour of the landlord, there was a recital of delivery of possession,
however, in view of the fact that the petitioners herein were claiming to
be in possession, the question as to whether the petitioners herein were in
possession as tenants or were in unauthorized occupation of the property
in question had to be decided by the Rent Controller and the said plea
could not be taken into consideration while deciding the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that once
the said sale deed relied upon by the landlord contained a recital to the
effect that the possession had been delivered to the respondent herein, the
same would show that he was in possession and thus, an application for
ejectment of the petitioners could not have been filed.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
has perused the paper-book.
7. The order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the 1st Appellate Court
is legal and valid. It has rightly been observed by the 1st Appellate Court
that it is the averments made in the plaint along with the documents
annexed with the plaint, which at best could be taken into consideration
for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and that the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100765
averments made in the written statement or the defence of the
defendants/petitioners in the present case were not to be taken into
consideration for the said purpose. The argument raised on behalf of the
petitioners on the aspect of possession also does not call for setting aside
of the impugned order, inasmuch as, it is the case of the petitioners that
they are in possession and thus, the question as to whether they are in
possession as owners or as tenants is a question which is to be decided
during the course of trial. It is the case of the present respondent, in the
petition for ejectment under Section 13 of the Act of 1973, that the
petitioners herein are tenants and thus, eviction has been sought on the
ground of non-payment of rent and also on the ground of personal
necessity. For the purpose of adjudicating an application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC, it is the said averments in the plaint which have to be taken
into consideration. Thus, there is no merit in the application filed by the
petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the impugned order vide
which the said application has been dismissed is well reasoned and
deserves to be upheld.
8. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, this
Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Additional
District Judge, Kaithal dated 03.11.2023 is legal and does not call for any
interference and the present civil revision petition being meritless,
deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
( VIKAS BAHL )
August 06, 2024 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
4 of 4
