(Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.)
Guru Ravidass Welfare Society _______________________ Appellant;
v.
Kulwinder Kumar ________________________________ Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 2442/2024 (@ Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) No. 18285 of 2019), decided on February 15, 2024
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant – landlord is aggrieved by an order dated 28th May, 2019, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby the Civil Revision1 filed by the respondent-tenant against an order dated 06th March, 2018 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, allowing the ejectment petition2 filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act3, 1949, in respect of two shops in a portion of the property in which the Gurudwara Sahib was constructed, has been overturned.
3. The stand of the appellant was that the Gurudwara was constructed in Khasra Nos. 709 and 710 at Old Phagwara Road in the year 1947. The Gurudwara was being managed by the appellant-Society. On the front elevation of the Gurudwara, four shops were constructed. The respondent was occupying two of the said four shops. The appellant made efforts to approach the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division to get the shops vacated, but to no avail. As a result, the appellant filed an ejectment petition against the respondent in respect of the two shops in question. The said petition was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 06th March, 2018, and a direction was issued to the respondent to vacate the two shops. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred a rent appeal4 before the learned Additional District Judge5, Jalandhar, which was dismissed vide order dated 21st May, 2018. However, the High Court overturned the concurrent findings returned by the two Courts and arrived at the conclusion that the findings of the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were not based on any evidence and that there was a gross misreading of evidence which led to allowing of the ejectment petition filed by the appellant. Resultantly, the revision petition1 filed by the respondent-tenant was allowed and the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and duly upheld by the Appellate Authority, were set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court failed to appreciate the fact that the two shops under the occupation of the respondent-tenant were a part of the front portion of the Gurudwara Sahib and were not situated on the other side of the Gurudwara, as would be apparent from the evidence brought on record including the photographs of the premises that the shops in question are a part and parcel of the Gurudwara Saheb duly managed and controlled by the appellant society and that the respondent’s plea that he was a tenant of Paragpur Social Welfare and Development Committee was an empty plea without any evidence to back the said submission.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant supports the impugned judgment and states that the appellant failed to demonstrate that it is the owner of the subject premises on which the Gurudwara Sahib is constructed and without establishing ownership, the appellant could not have succeeded in the eviction petition filed before the learned Rent Controller. It is further stated that the appellant did not lead adequate evidence to demonstrate that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondent, which was sufficient reason to have non-suited the appellant.
6. We have perused the records and examined the judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller wherein the evidence has been analyzed. The records reveal that to establish the existence of a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the Court has referred to Section 2(C) of the Rent Act that defines the term “landlord” and describes it as ‘any person, who for the time being is entitled to receive the rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf, or for the benefit, of any other person, or as a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person, and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter authorised, and, every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord’.
7. Relying on the aforesaid definition of landlord, the learned Rent Controller has rightly observed that a landlord need not necessarily be an owner of the subject premises and as long as he is entitled to receive the rent of the premises, the status of landlord could not be questioned. Therefore, the issue of ownership could not have engaged the Court. We may note that on its part, the appellant society adduced evidence and produced documents to establish that the property in question was recorded in the Revenue Records as belonging to the Gram Panchayat. PW-3, who was an officer summoned from the Revenue Authorities had produced evidence to demonstrate that the Gurudwara Sahib was constructed in a part of the property situated in Khasras No. 709 and 710. The report of the Tehsildar also supported the said position. The claim of the respondent that he was a tenant under Paragpur Social Welfare and Development Committee; remained an empty claim as nothing was placed on record by way of evidence to demonstrate that the respondent was paying any rent to the said Committee, nor did the Committee step forward to support the claim of the respondent to the effect that rent was being paid by him to it in respect of the two shops in question.
8. In our opinion, adequate evidence has been placed on record by the appellant to establish its status as a landlord of the subject shops. Pertinently, during his cross-examination, when the respondent was confronted with the site plan, he admitted the location of the shops in dispute as per the said site plan, which formed a part of the premises of the Gurudwara Sahib. Once it is not in dispute that Gurudwara Sahib was constructed by the appellant-society and the shops in question formed a part of the Gurudwara Sahib complex, there is no occasion for the High Court to have interfered in the judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller, duly upheld by the Appellate Authority. In our opinion, the High Court has erred by interfering in a well-reasoned judgment of the learned Rent Controller, who had carefully gone through the entire records before returning a finding to the effect that the respondent was a tenant under the appellant-landlord and had failed to make payment of the arrears of rent or even the current rent and therefore, was liable to be evicted from the demised shops.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment being unsustainable, is quashed and set aside. The order dated 06th March, 2018 passed by the learned Rent Controller and upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 21st May, 2018, is restored. As a result, the respondent is directed to vacate the subject premises within four months, i.e. on or before 31st May, 2024, subject to filing the usual affidavit with an undertaking to this Court that he will vacate the subject premises within the time granted. In the event, the respondent fails to vacate the subject premises, the appellant shall be entitled to seek appropriate recourse, as permissible under the law.
10. The appeal is allowed on the above terms, while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses. Pending applications stand disposed of.
———
1 Civil Revision No. 4627 of 2018
2 CIS Case No. Rent – 30546/2013 (CNR No. – PBJL020017582013)
3 For short the ‘Act’
4 Case No. 55/2018 (CNR No. – PBJL01-05355-2018)
5 For short the ‘Appellate Authority’
