Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Revision No. 1887 of 1998

Judges

V.S Aggarwal, J.

Acts

SECTION 15 EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT 1949

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — V.S. Aggarwal, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

This revision petition was filed by Brij Mohan (the petitioner) against an eviction order dated 21.11.1995 of the learned Rent Controller, Sirsa, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority, Sirsa on 9.3.1998.

Respondents Meera Devi and Pushpa Devi (the petitioners in the eviction petition / landlords) filed an eviction petition against Shakuntla Devi and Surinder Dass (respondents 3 and 4) and the present petitioner. The eviction ground that survived was that respondents 3 and 4, who were alleged to be original tenants and partners in M/s Mahant Electric Company, had sublet the premises to the petitioner. It was alleged the partnership was dissolved and exclusive possession was handed over to the petitioner, who was carrying on business as proprietor of M/s Mahant Electric Company.

Respondents 3 and 4 did not contest and were proceeded against ex parte. The petitioner contested the eviction petition, admitted that respondents 1 and 2 were the owners, and contended that he was a tenant in his own right and that rent had been paid to respondents 1 and 2. The Rent Controller found that the premises had been sublet to the petitioner and passed an eviction order. The Appellate Authority affirmed that finding. The petitioner filed the present revision petition challenging those conclusions.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petitioner was a direct tenant of the landlords (respondents 1 and 2) or was a sub-tenant / in wrongful subletting of the premises (i.e., whether the premises had been sublet to the petitioner).
Whether this Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, should interfere with the findings of fact returned by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority—particularly in light of the petitioner's contention of misreading of pleadings and evidence.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

There was a total misreading of the pleadings and evidence by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.
The eviction petition itself pleaded that cause of action arose in 1984 (when the partnership allegedly dissolved and exclusive possession was handed to the petitioner), implying an admission by the landlords; therefore the pleadings were wrongly construed.
The petitioner asserted he was a tenant since 1.4.1984, paid rent (including by cheques), and that rent had been accepted by the landlords—thus he should be treated as direct tenant.
It was also argued that husbands of respondents 1 and 2 carried on business nearby and, if subletting had occurred earlier, the landlords would have known sooner (implying a challenge to the chronology relied upon by landlords).

Respondents' Arguments

The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had returned clear findings of fact and, under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, those findings should not be disturbed by this Court unless legality or propriety is questionable.
They effectively argued that the revisional court should not re-appraise evidence or disturb findings of fact absent proof of error, absurdity, or misreading of evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India	The Supreme Court's principle that findings of fact arrived at by inferior authorities need not be disturbed by a higher court.	The Court relied on this authority to emphasize that findings of fact by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority should not be interfered with unless there is a valid ground (such as illegality or impropriety) to do so.
Chaudhary Ram v. Liba Sood	That the relevant provision (sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as construed) does not permit the revisional court to re-appraise evidence and that findings based on evidence cannot be interfered with unless absurd or based on misreading of evidence.	The Court applied the same approach: it held that the Rent Controller's and Appellate Authority's findings were based on evidence and were neither absurd nor a misreading, thereby foreclosing re-appraisal by the revisional court.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by stating the scope of revisional power under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, quoting the provision which permits the High Court, as revisional authority, to call for and examine records to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of orders passed under the Act. From this the Court concluded that interference is appropriate only where the legality or propriety of the impugned orders is questionable.

The Court reiterated the settled principle—supported by cited precedents—that findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are ordinarily not to be disturbed unless they are erroneous, absurd, or founded upon a misreading of the evidence.

Turning to the petitioner's specific contentions, the Court examined the pleadings. The petitioner had argued the landlords' eviction petition admitted they knew of the partnership dissolution from 1.4.1984. The Court analyzed the pleading quoted in the record and concluded the landlords had not alleged they knew of the dissolution from that date; they had pleaded only that the cause of action arose on non-payment of rent and in the year 1984 when the partnership was dissolved and exclusive possession handed over. The Court therefore found no admission by the landlords that they knew of the dissolution on 1.4.1984 and rejected the petitioner's contention of misreading the pleadings.

On the rent-payment issue, the Court noted the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority believed rent had not been accepted by the landlords directly from the petitioner (and that, even assuming payment, mere payment did not convert a sub-tenant into a direct tenant). The replication and the rent-controller file were examined; the replication recorded that certain cheques were refused and that on discovery of the alleged subletting the landlords immediately filed the eviction petition. The Court concluded there was no admission that rent had been accepted directly from the petitioner and therefore found no basis to disturb the factual findings.

The Court also rejected the petitioner's contention that the landlords would have known earlier because husbands of respondents 1 and 2 carried on business nearby, noting instead that the petitioner carried on business under the same name as the old firm and could have misled the landlords, causing the truth to emerge only later.

Finally, the Court applied the legal principle that mere payment of rent, without an intention to create a demise or tenancy, does not convert a person into a tenant directly under the landlord. Finding that the requisite intention to create a tenancy was absent, the Court held that the Rent Controller's and Appellate Authority's findings that the petitioner was not a direct tenant were based on evidence and did not merit re-appraisal.

Holding and Implications

Petition dismissed.

Direct effect: The revision petition filed by Brij Mohan was dismissed as without merit, and the petitioner was granted three months' time to vacate the property.

The opinion does not purport to establish any broader precedent beyond applying established principles (i.e., limited scope of revisional interference with findings of fact and the rule that mere payment of rent does not create tenancy absent intention). No new legal principle was announced.

Show full summary ...

Brij Mohan v. Meera Devi And Others

V.S Aggarwal, J.:— The present revision petition has been filed by Brij Mohan (hereinafter described as ‘the petitioner’) directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Sirsa dated 21.11.1995 and of the Appellate Authority, Sirsa dated 9.3.1998 The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner and another. The said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority.

2. The relevant facts are that respondents Meera Devi and Pushpa Devi had filed an eviction petition against Shakuntla Devi and Surinder Dass (respondents 3 and 4) besides the petitioner. It was alleged that Shakuntla Devi and Surinder Dass were partners of M/s Mahant Electric Company. They were tenants in the suit property. The ground of eviction which survives for consideration was that respondents 3 and 4 were stated to have sublet the premises to the petitioner. It was asserted that respondents 3 and 4 are the original tenants. The partnership had been dissolved and the possession has been handed over to the petitioner who is carrying on business as proprietor of M/s Mahant Electric Company.

3. Respondents 3 and 4 did not contest the petition for eviction and were proceeded ex parte. The eviction petition was contested by the petitioner. He admitted that respondents 1 and 2 are the owners of the demised premises. As per the petitioner he is a tenant in the premises in his own right. He was paying rent to respondents 1 and 2 which was accepted. Thus, it was denied that property had been sublet to him.

4. The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The Rent Controller recorded that no rent agreement had been executed. It was held that rent had not been paid to respondents 1 and 2 and that even if the rent had been paid, it will not make the petitioner a tenant therein. It was concluded that property has been sublet to the petitioner and order of eviction was passed. An appeal was preferred with the Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority approved the findings of the learned Rent Controller and the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

5. On behalf of the respondents an objection was raised that there are clear findings of fact arrived at by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and, therefore, this Court will not interfere in the said findings of fact. The attention of the Court was drawn to the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 in this regard.

Section 15(6) of the said Act reads:—

“15(6) (The High Court,) as revisional authority, may, at any time, on its own motion or on the application of any aggrieved party, made within a period of ninety days, call for and examine the record relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as, to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit. In computing the period of ninety days the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order shall be excluded.”

6. It is abundantly clear from aforesaid that this Court can only interfere in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, if the legality and propriety of the same is questionable. Ordinarily the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority will not be interfered with. This question had been considered by the Supreme Court more often than once in the case of Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation Of India. of India,1. The Supreme Court held that findings which had been arrived at by the authorities need not be disturbed. This Court in the case of Chaudhary Ram v. Liba Sood,2 also while construing Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 held:—

“There is another way of looking at the matter. Both the Courts namely the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have returned findings of the fact. They are based on evidence. The same cannot be described to be absurd and that there was misreading of evidence. Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act will not permit this Court to re-appraise the evidence. As already noted above the findings are correct and, therefore, there is no scope for interference.”

7. It is abundantly clear from aforesaid that findings of fact arrived at requires no interference unless they are erroneous, absurd or there is misreading of the evidence.

8. However, learned counsel for the petitioner very eloquently pleaded that there is total misreading of the pleadings of the parties. According to him in the petition for eviction, respondents 1 and 2 pleaded that cause of action arose to them in the year 1984 when partnership between respondents 3 and 4 was dissolved and exclusive possession was given to the petitioner. While in the replication it was asserted that respondents 1 and 2 could not know of this fact immediately. To appreciate the said contention, reference can well be made to the pleadings in this regard in the petition for eviction. Respondents 1 and 2 pleaded:—

“That the cause of action arose to the applicants on non-payment of rent every month and also in the year 1984 when the partnership was dissolved between the respondent No. 1 and 2 and exclusive possession was handed over to respondent No. 3 by them.”

9. In the written statement filed the petitioner had asserted that he is a tenant since 1.4.1984 in the entire premises at an yearly rent of Rs. 7,500/-. The rent was being received by respondents 1 and 2 in equal shares. He also stated that rent was paid namely for first six months to respondents 1 and 2 followed by the rent of subsequent six months. The replication was filed and it was pleaded by respondents 1 and 2-landlords:—

“f(ii). That regarding para No. 2(f)(ii) of the written statement it is denied for want of knowledge that respondent No. 3 became the proprietor of M/s Mahant Electric Company since 1.4.1984 The petitioners never knew that the tenants i.e respondents No. 1 and 2 had dissolved the firm or that Brij Mohan respondent No. 3 had become proprietor of the firm w.e.f 1.4.1984 Respondent No. 3 has got no concern with the tenancy rights. It stands admitted by respondent No. 3 that he at present is in exclusive possession of the premises in dispute and that respondents No. 1 and 2 have left the possession of the premises and have got no concern with the possession of the premises. It is wrong that the fact of subletting is only false and wrong or that it is a concocted story.”

10. It is abundantly clear from aforesaid that in the petition the respondent-landlords have never alleged that they know from 1.4.1984 that partnership of respondents 3 and 4 has been dissolved. It had simply been asserted that property had been sublet from 1.4.1984 The pleadings have to be re-appraised as a whole. Reading of the same clearly shows that though the partnership of respondents 3 and 4 was dissolved on 1.4.1984, the petitioner claims that he came to know of this dissolution much later. The said contention, therefore, that there is an admission in this regard by respondents 1 and 2 in the pleadings must be rejected.

11. Confronted with that position it was alleged that respondents 1 and 2 admitted the payment of rent. As already mentioned above, the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority believed the said version that rent was paid to respondents 1 and 2 by cheques. The said findings of fact cannot be disturbed. But still the learned counsel read the replication to assert that this fact would be admitted. The relevant part of the replication reads:—

“f(i). That para No. 2(f)(i) of the written statement is wrong and that of the petition is correct. It is wrong that respondent No. 3 Brij Mohan is a tenant over the premises in dispute since 1.4.1984 The rent of the premises had throughout been received from respondents No. 1 and 2 who according to the information of the petitioners were carrying on their business in the name and style of M/s Mahanat Electric Company, Sirsa. It was known to the petitioners that Brij Mohan Sabharwal was conducting the business as Manager on behalf of the said firm i.e, M/s Mahant Electric Company, Sirsa. The petitioners never came to know that the firm M/s Mahant Electric Company had been dissolved or that the same had become the proprietorship of Brij Mohan - respondent No. 3. The petitioners however had refused to receive two cheques from Brij Mohan-respondent No. 3 when they came to know that the firm had been dissolved and that respondent No. 3 was conducting the business in his individual capacity as proprietor of the firm. To the knowledge of the petitioners Account No. 727 was not the account of Mahant Electric Company of which respondents No. 1 and 2 were the partners. It is incorrect that rent for six months was paid vide two separate cheques (Rs. 1,875/- each) dated 25.10.1984

Subsequent two cheques dated 1.6.1985 (Rs. 1,875/- each) as rent from 1.4.1985 were also not accepted by the petitioners because the cheques indicated that they had not been issued by the previous firm. The petitioners, therefore, had refused to encash the cheques dated 1.6.1985 and had received the payment in cash on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. Subsequent two cheques dated 13.12.1986 were also refused by the petitioners on the same ground and the petitioners on coming to know about the sub letting of the shop immediately came to the court and have filed the present petition for eviction.

It may be further added here that respondent No. 3 was also acting as Manager on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and the petitioners had no reason to doubt that the old firm had been dissolved or that respondent No. 3 had started his own business in the shop.

The mere receipt of rent by the petitioners does not mean that the petitioners had accepted respondent No. 3 to be their tenant over the premises in dispute. It is also a settled law that mere payment of rent even by a sub tenant does not make him a tenant directly under the landlord.”

12. In fact the file of the learned Rent Controller had been called to verify this fact. Reading of the same clearly shows that it had not been admitted that rent had been accepted from the petitioner directly. The findings arrived at, therefore, by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority indeed does not require any interference.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that husbands of respondents No. 1 and 2 were carrying on business nearby and, therefore, if there was subletting he would have known earlier. The said plea must be stated to be rejected. It is in evidence that petitioner started carrying on business as proprietor by the same name in which the firm of respondents 3 and 4 was running. Therefore, chances of being mislead was obvious. The truth would come little later.

14. There is another way of looking at the matter. At best the petitioner claims that petitioner had paid rent for sometime to respondents 1 and 2. It transpired in evidence that even when respondents 3 and 4 were tenants, the petitioner could operate the accounts. A tenancy would only be created when there is an intention to create a demise in the property. Mere payment by itself will not make a person tenant in the suit premises. That intention is totally missing. Even if it is presumed that rent was paid by the petitioner while he was earlier also to give the cheques on behalf of the respondents, the necessary inference would be that it will not create a demise in the property.

15. As a result of the reasons given above, the findings of fact of the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that petitioner is not a direct tenant in the premises require no interference. Evidence recorded has been appreciated and it need not be re-appraised.

16. For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed. The petitioner is granted three month's time to vacate the property.

R.M.S

Petition dismissed.

Brij Mohan v. Meera Devi And Others

Judgment Summary — V.S. Aggarwal, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Brij Mohan v. Meera Devi And Others

Comments