- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sandeep Shahi v. Smt. Asha Rani .
Factual and Procedural Background
The tenant invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, challenging an order dated 7.2.2009 by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. The impugned order allowed the landlord's appeal, directed eviction of the tenant-revisionist, and required the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the disputed premises within two months.
The landlord filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the 1949 Act, claiming ownership of Industrial Shed No. 136-140/82, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, and asserting that the tenant had rented part of the premises since 1.11.1993 at Rs. 10,000 per month with a 10% annual increase. The tenant was alleged to be in arrears of Rs. 3,97,915/- as of 31.1.1999, having paid only Rs. 3,83,000/- against a due amount of Rs. 7,80,915/-.
The tenant appeared on notice, tendered Rs. 40,000/- as arrears for the period 1.11.1998 to 28.2.1999, and denied the landlord’s ownership, claiming the premises had been resumed by the Industries and Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh.
The Rent Controller, by order dated 7.11.2005, held the rent at Rs. 10,000 per month and recognized the tenant-landlord relationship, granting the tenant one month to pay Rs. 6,55,000/- arrears. The landlord was directed to set off any amounts received from the tenant. Failure to pay would result in eviction.
The tenant appealed, but the Appellate Authority on 7.2.2009 upheld the rent rate, found the tenant in arrears of Rs. 3,97,915/-, declared the tenant’s tender invalid and short, and held that denial of landlord-tenant relationship obviated the need for an opportunity to pay arrears. The eviction order was confirmed. The tenant challenged this order by revision petition before this Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an opportunity to pay arrears of rent should be granted to a tenant who denies the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.
Arguments of the Parties
Tenant's Arguments
- The rent deed is unregistered and therefore inadmissible as evidence.
- Reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation (2005 (5) SCC 440) to argue that the Rent Controller was correct in granting an opportunity to pay arrears, and that the Appellate Authority’s order denying this opportunity was erroneous.
Landlord's Arguments
- Once the tenant denies the landlord-tenant relationship, there is no question of rent assessment or granting an opportunity to pay arrears.
- Reliance on this Court’s judgments in Raghbir Singh and others v. Sansar Chand and others (2004 (2) R.C.R (Rent) 670), Hukma Devi v. Bhagwan Dass (2003 (1) RCR (Rent) 533), and Jagdish Singh v. Mohan Lal (2004 (2) R.C.R (Rent) 114) to support this position.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2005 (5) SCC 440 | Granting opportunity to tenant to pay arrears of rent where relationship is undisputed. | Court noted tenant’s reliance on this case but distinguished it because the tenant denied the landlord-tenant relationship, which changes the applicability of this principle. |
| Raghbir Singh and others v. Sansar Chand and others, 2004 (2) R.C.R (Rent) 670 | No need to assess rent or grant opportunity to pay arrears when tenant denies landlord-tenant relationship. | Court adopted the principle that denial of relationship obviates assessment and opportunity to pay arrears, as the tenant cannot be expected to pay rent to a party he denies as landlord. |
| Hukma Devi v. Bhagwan Dass, 2003 (1) RCR (Rent) 533 | Preventing tenants from abusing the process by denying landlord-tenant relationship to delay payment of rent. | Court emphasized that no obligation exists to assess arrears or grant opportunity if relationship is denied, to avoid tenants abusing the process. |
| Ramanand Shastri v. Gain Singh, 2003 (1) R.C.R (Rent) 735 | Consistent with the principle that denial of landlord-tenant relationship precludes rent assessment and opportunity to pay arrears. | Cited in support of the view that rent assessment is futile when relationship is denied. |
| Jagdish Singh v. Mohan Lal, 2004 (2) R.C.R (Rent) 114 | Supporting the landlord’s argument regarding denial of relationship and consequences on rent assessment. | Relied upon to uphold the eviction order without opportunity to pay arrears when relationship is denied. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court carefully considered the facts and the parties’ arguments alongside the precedents cited. It was undisputed that the tenant denied the landlord-tenant relationship in the written statement and that the tenant had paid only a portion of the alleged arrears.
The Court identified the central legal question as whether a tenant denying the landlord-tenant relationship is entitled to an opportunity to pay arrears of rent. The Court analyzed the consistent view expressed in the cited precedents, particularly Raghbir Singh and Hukma Devi, which establish that when the tenant denies the relationship, rent assessment and granting an opportunity to pay arrears are unnecessary and futile.
The Court reasoned that allowing an opportunity to pay arrears under such circumstances would enable unscrupulous tenants to delay payment by denying the relationship, thereby defeating the purpose of the rent law. Since the tenant in this case denied the relationship and tendered only a partial amount, the tenant acted at his own risk.
Accordingly, the Court found no error in the Appellate Authority’s approach and held that eviction was justified without granting further opportunity to pay arrears.
Holding and Implications
The Court dismissed the tenant’s revision petition, thereby affirming the eviction order passed by the Appellate Authority.
The direct effect of this decision is that a tenant who denies the landlord-tenant relationship cannot claim an opportunity to pay arrears of rent and is liable to eviction if arrears remain unpaid. The Court did not set any new precedent but followed established legal principles to uphold the eviction order.
Alok Singh, J. — Tenant has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 1949 Act), assailing the order dated 7.2.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the landlord and directing eviction of the tenant-revisionist and further directing the tenant to hand Page: 501over vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord within two months from today.
2. Brief facts of the present case, inter-alia, are that the respondent—landlord herein filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the 1949 Act for the ejectment of the revisionist-tenant on the averments that the applicant is the owner/landlord of Industrial Shed No. 136-140/82, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh; the revisionist took a part of the premises measuring 1000 sq. ft. on rent on 1.11.1993 @ Rs. 10,000/- per month excluding water and electricity charges and the rent was to be increased every year @ 10 percent. The rent as agreed was as under:—
“1. 01.11.93 to 31.10.94 Rs. 10,000/- PM 2. 01.11.94 to 31.10.95 Rs. 11,000/- PM 3. 01.11.95 to 31.10.96 Rs. 12,100/- PM 4. 01.11.96 to 31.10.97 Rs. 13,310/- PM 5. 01.11.97 to 31.10.98 Rs. 14,640/- PM 6. 01.11.98 to 31.10.99 Rs. 16,105/- PM”
3. The rent was payable on or before 7th of each month. The tenant was to pay rent amounting to Rs. 7,80,915/- upto 31.1.1999 and he paid only Rs. 3,83,000/- and he is in arrears of rent amounting Rs. 3,97,915/-.
4. On the notice, the revisionist came present and tendered Rs. 40,000/- as arrears of rent from 1.11.1998 to 28.2.1999 @ Rs. 10,000/- per month, Rs. 3500/- as interest and costs as assessed by the Rent Controller on 7.3.2007 and denied that applicant is owner/landlord of the premises in dispute. It was further pleaded by the revisionist that the disputed premises has been resumed by the Industries and Tourism development Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh.
5. The Rent Controller vide order dated 7.11.2005 has held the rate of rent as Rs. 10,000/- per month and the respondent is tenant of the petitioner. The Rent Controller granted one months time to pay the rent amounting to Rs. 6,55,000/- and the land lord was directed to set off any other amount he received from the tenant, failing which the tenant was directed to hand over the possession of the premises to the landlord. Feeling aggrieved from the judgement of the Rent Controller, Appeal No. 20 of 2005 was preferred before the Appellate Authority, which was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned judgement dated 7.2.2009, thereby holding that rate of rent is Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is further held that the revisionist—tenant was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3,97,915/- on the date of filing of the petition and the tender made by the tenant was short and invalid. It was further held by the Appellate Authority that once relationship of landlord—tenant is denied between the parties, then there was no need to give any opportunity to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent. Ultimately, eviction order was passed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned judgement dated 7.2.2009 Feeling aggrieved from the judgement of the Appellate Authority, the tenant has approached this Court by way of present revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the alleged rent deed is unregistered and hence, cannot be read in evidence. It was further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the judgement of the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, reported in 2002 (1) R.C.R (Rent) 514 : 2005 (5) SCC 440, the Rent Controller was well within his jurisdiction while granting an opportunity to the petitioner to pay arrears Page: 502of rent and the judgement of the Appellate Authority is wrong in view of the dictum of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawans case (supra).
7. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that once relationship of landlord—tenant is denied by the tenant, there is no question of assessment of rent and to give an opportunity to the tenant to pay arrears of rent. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Raghbir Singh and others v. Sansar Chand and others, reported in 2004 (2) R.C.R (Rent) 670 : 2004 (3) PLR 841, in the case of Hukma Devi…Petitioners v. Bhagwan Dass…, reported in 2003 (1) RCR (Rent) 533 as well as in the case of Jagdish Singh…Petitioner v. Mohan Lal…, reported in 2004 (2) R.C.R (Rent) 114 : 2004 (3) PLR 78.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully and the judgements cited by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Undisputedly, in the present case, relationship of landlord—tenant is denied by the revisionist in the written statement. Undisputedly, on the first date of hearing, revisionist has deposited arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- only. Both the Courts below on the basis of the evidence available on record, have found that the revisionist has taken the demise premises from the landlord—respondent herein on 1.11.1993 @ Rs. 10,000/- per month excluding water and electricity charges.
10. The sole question which requires consideration by this Court is as to whether an opportunity should be granted to the (OP) tenant to pay the arrears of rent in the event (OP) tenant denies the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties?
11. In the case of Raghbir Singh (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court in paragraph 14 has held as under:—
“14. It may further be observed that an attempt was made to argue that on account of law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan and Ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Ors., 2002 (1) R.C.R (Rent) 514 : (2002-2) 131 P.L.R 370, the tenant-respondent is entitled to an opportunity for payment of rent. It was suggested that since no provisional order of assessment of rent has been drawn by the Rent Controller, the tenant-respondent deserved to be granted an opportunity for depositing the arrears of rent. However, I am not impressed with the argument raised because this Court has taken a consistent view that in cases where the tenant disputed the relationship between the parties, then no order of assessment of rent is required to be framed because it would be a futile exercise because the tenant cannot be expected to pay rent to some one to whom he did not regard his landlord. The aforementioned view has been taken by this Court in the case of Ramanand Shastri v. Gain Singh, 2003 (1) R.C.R (Rent) 735 : 2003 (3) Civil Court Cases 62 and Hukma Devi…Petitioners v. Bhagwan Dass…, (2003-2) 134 P.L.R 771. Therefore, I have no hesitation in disagreeing with the suggestion made.”
12. In the case of Hukma Devi (supra), this Court in paragraph 14 has held as under:—
“14. A perusal of afore-mentioned provision shows that there is a presumption of relationship of landlord and tenant which is implicit in Section 13(2). Therefore, an unscrupulous tenant like the petitioner cannot first be permitted to take the stand that he is not the tenant under the landlord and then to Page: 503claim that he is a tenant but he should be permitted to deposit the assessed arrears of rent. If such an interpretation is given to Section 13(2) than many tenants may take the stand that there is no relationships of landlord and tenant. In such a case a tenant would successfully delay the payment of rent. Therefore, there cannot be any obligation on the Rent Controller to make an assessment about the arrears of rent once such a stand has been taken by the tenant. The objection of making assessment of the arrears of rent, interest and cost by the landlord is that in case there is a dispute with regard to rate of rent or the period of rent, house tax, cost and interest etc. then he may not suffer because of short tender. But in a case where the tenant refuses the liability to pay the rent, the question of assessment would not at all arise.”
13. From the dictum of the judgements of this Court in the cases of Raghbir Singh (supra) and Hukma Devi (supra), it is clear that once relationship of landlord—tenant is denied, neither assessment of rent is required to be made nor or any opportunity is required to be given to the tenant to pay arrears of rent.
14. In view of the undisputed fact that on the first date of hearing, revisionist has paid only Rs. 40,000/- while as per the finding recorded by both the Courts below, total outstanding amount against the revisionist was Rs. 3,97,915/-, hence, tenant failed to pay the arrears of rent and made him liable to be evicted. In the considered opinion of this Court, if tenant denies the relationship of landlord-tenant or tenders lesser amount, he does so at his own risk and if at the final stage, the Courts come to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord—tenant was wrongly denied and the OP is the landlord of the property, eviction must follow and no opportunity should be given to the tenant to make good the deficiency in the arrears of rent.
In view of the above, no interference is called for with the impugned judgement.
Dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Alert