J.V Gupta, J.:— The landlord petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur dated 23, 1978, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing ejectment of the tenant has been set aside.
2. Shrimati Ram Piari, widow of Shri Buta Ram petitioner filed application for ejectment alleging that the respondents Ram Saroop etc. had taken the shop on rent from her at Rs. 600/- per month with effect from March 25, 1972. It was alleged that the tenants had not paid the rent from March 25, 1972, that they had sublet the premises without her consent and that they had changed the shape of the premises and had made other construction without her permission, impairing the value and utility of the premises. This application was contested by Ram Saroop tenant. It was stated by him that originally the permises were let out on rent by Surinder Kumar (who is son of the petitioner Shrimati Ram piari at Rs. 200/- per month on March 27, 1972 and from 1st of April, 1973, the rent was increased to Rs. 300/- per month. So the claim was that Surinder Kumar was the landlord and not the petitioner Shrimati Ram Piari. Other allegations were also denied Even the rent which was due was not tendered or paid on the first date of hearing. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:
1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
2. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected on the grounds mentioned in para 5 of the petition.
3. Whether the respondents 1 to 3 have sublet the premises in dispute to respondent No. 4 without the consent and permission of the landlord.
4. Whether a valid notice has bean served on the respondents, if not its effect.
3. The learned Rent Controller found all the issue in favour of the landlord and consequently passed the eviction order against the tenant. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority has reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on Issue No. 1 and it has been held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and consequently accepted the appeal and set aside the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller While disposing the appeal it has been observed by the Appellate Authority that “no doubt she was the owner yet she had not let the property to the tenants. The tenancy being a contract, can be availed of only by a person who entered into it. The circumstances show that Surinder Kumar did not lease out the property on behalf of Ram Piari and represented himself to be the landlord and has then dealt with the property and the rent accordingly.” Feeling aggrieved against this order, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the landlord vehemently contended that the Appellate Authority has acted illegally and improperly inseting aside the finding of the Rent Controller and it has been wrongly held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Even according to the finding of the Appellate Authority, the counsel submits, Ram Piari is the owner and she, therefore, becomes the landlord as defined in section 2(c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 949 (hereinafter called the Act) which is to the following effect:—
“2(a) … … … …
2(b) … … … …
2(c) ‘landlord’ meant any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or as a trust, 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.”
5. Similarly the word ‘tenant has also been defined in Section 2(i) of the Act which reads thus:
“2(a) to 2(h)…………
2(i) ‘tenant means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building or rented land by its tenant, unless with the consent in writing of the landlord, or a person to whom the collecting of rent or fees in a public market, cart stand or slaughter house or of rents for shops has been framed out or leave by a municipal, town or notified area committee.”
6. From the language of the definition it is being contended that any person who it entitled to receive rent for the time being in respect of any building will be deemed to be the landlord for the purposes of the Act. It may be that Surinder Kumar son of Shrimati Ram Piari who allowed the tenant to occupy the premises may also be the landlord under this definition, but according to the learned counsel Shrimati Ram Piari having been found to be the owner of the property is certainly a landlord since she is entitled to receive rent of the ranted premises for the time being. It is all the more so when there is no dispute between Surinder Kumar and Shrimati Ram Piari rather Surinder Kumar who has appeared in the witness box has admitted that Ham Piari is the owner of the property and he rented out the pre mites on her behalf and the amount paid by the tenant was received by on her behalf. Under these circumstances, Ram Piari who is the owner of the property certainly falls within the definition of the term ‘landlord’. In support of his contention, he relied upon Puran Chandra v. Rex . AIR 1951 All 628. and Shri Modern Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh . 1977 II R.L.R 641.. Of the two, the latter authority, i.e, Madan Lal's case (supra) is of some relevance. There the case was under Delhi Rent Control of, 1958 and it was observed therein that “the argument of Mr. Nayar amounts to this that if the agent has let out the premises then he alone is competent to file eviction application against the tenant. Now the definition of the landlord means a person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of the premises on his own account or for the benefit of any other person. This is a very wide definition which covers a person who is entitled to receive rent also to be called as landlord within the meaning of the Act But that does not mean that it takes away the ordinary meanings of the ‘word’ ‘landlord’ which includes the owner.”
7. The learned counsel for the respondent was unable to cite any authority for the proposition that if a person is found to be the owner of the property, whether he will be included in the term ‘landlord’ or not. In all the cases cited by him it was held that the person who inducted the tenant in the premises will be the landlord qua hire;. This proposition is not being contested by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. After heating the learned counsel for the parties at great length, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Under Section 13 of the Act, a landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. When such an application is filed on behalf of the landlord on the ground that he bona fide requires the premises for his own occupation, then it will be the need of the owner and not of the person who was there only to realise the rant, though he comes within the definition of the word ‘landlord’ Even the opening words of Section 2 of the Act provide that “in this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context” and then the definition of the word ‘landlord’ has been given. Thus whenever an application for ejectment of the tenant is fifed under section 13 of the Act, it will not be the person who inducted the tenant and was thus entitled to receive rent in respect of the rented premises, but rather the owner of the property who will be the landlord for the purposes of the Act, because he is the person who is entitled to receive the rest for the time being though somebody on his behalf is receiving the same. It may be that in case the rent has been paid to the person who inducted the tenant in the rented premises, any payment made to him will be good payment and the tenant cannot be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent to the owner of the property because the person to whom the rent has been paid was entitled to receive the same for the time being and thus he was the landlord to that extent. In the present case, it has been found by the Rent Controller that even if the rent is taken to be at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month as contended by the tenant, he was stilt in arrears of rent at least for more than Rs. 6,000/- at the time of the application for ejectment and no such payment was made on the first date of hearing. In case the tenant thought that Surinder Kumar son of Shrimati Ram Piari was his landlord, it was his duty to tender the rent on the first date of hearing which was due from him to Surinder Kumar particularly when a notice had already been given to him by Shrimati Ram Piari before filing the ejectment application. His failure to pay the arrears of rent makes him liable for ejectment from the rented premises. In a given case if there is dispute between the person who inducted the tenant and the person who claims himself to be the owner of the property, the Sent Controller may not decide this dispute under the Act and may refer the parties to the Civil Court, but in a case where there is so dispute between the person who inducted the tenant originally and the real owner of the property, rather it is admitted by the person that he has rented out the premises on behalf of the owner and has been realising the rent on his behalf, that under these circumstances, it can not be held that the owner is not the landlord of the property for the purposes of the Act.
9. For the reasons recorded above, this petition succeeds, the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller is restored. However, the tenant is allowed two months' time to vacate the premises provided the arrears if any and the advance rent for the two months is paid or deposited within a fortnight.
H.L.S
Revision petition accepted.
Comments