- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Surinder Pal Kaur And Another v. Satpal And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The original landlords, Rana Shiv Gopal Singh and Rani Amarjeet Kaur, filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1963 against tenant Krishan Lal in respect of House No. 8603-5 (New No. 452/542), Block No. 6, Ambala City. The ground taken was non-payment of rent at Rs 70 per month from 1 June 1987, amounting to 25 months’ default. After the death of the original parties, their legal heirs were substituted—the present appellants as landlords and the respondents as tenants.
Before the Rent Controller, the tenant disputed the landlord-tenant relationship, asserting tenancy under Deity Shivji and pointing to proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in which the Tahsildar, Ambala, had been appointed Receiver of the property.
The Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition on 22 November 1995. On appeal (Rent Appeal No. 55 of 1996), the Appellate Authority reversed that decision, holding that the alleged landlords were only office-bearers of the temple’s management committee and could not sue in their individual capacity. Relying heavily on findings in the Section 145 CrPC proceedings, the Appellate Authority concluded that the appellants lacked locus standi.
The appellants filed a revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was dismissed on 7 May 2013, essentially upholding reliance on the Section 145 CrPC record. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court by special leave, leading to the present decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether observations and findings recorded in proceedings under Section 145 CrPC can determine or influence the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship in a rent control proceeding.
- Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the revision petition solely because the property was under attachment and a Receiver had been appointed at the time the ejectment petition was filed.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The High Court wrongly treated observations in Section 145 CrPC proceedings as determinative of landlord-tenant status.
- Findings in criminal preventive proceedings cannot bind or substitute the inquiry required in rent control adjudication.
Respondents' Arguments
- Relied on the order dated 26 February 1992 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the revisional order dated 12 July 1994 to show that, at the time of filing the rent petition, the property was attached and the Tahsildar was Receiver.
- Contended that these circumstances undermined the appellants’ claim to be landlords entitled to collect rent or seek eviction.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi (2004) 1 SCC 438 | Findings in Section 145 CrPC proceedings are not binding on, nor admissible before, a competent court except to show limited facts such as existence of a dispute and possession status. | The Supreme Court invoked this ruling to emphasise that Section 145 CrPC orders cannot settle questions of title or landlord-tenant relationship in rent control matters. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that orders made under Section 145 CrPC have a narrow evidentiary value: they can show that a dispute existed, the parties involved, and the fact of attachment or possession, but they do not decide civil rights or landlord-tenant relationships. The Court reviewed the Section 145 orders and found no finding regarding the appellants’ status as landlords or the respondents’ obligation to pay rent. It further noted that the respondents had not paid rent to the Receiver or any management committee after the attachment.
Accordingly, the Court held that the High Court erred in treating the existence of attachment and a Receiver as sufficient to dismiss the revision. The decisive inquiry—whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed and whether rent had been defaulted—was not resolved merely by the preventive criminal proceedings. The High Court therefore failed to exercise its revisional jurisdiction properly.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court order set aside; matter remitted for fresh adjudication.
Consequences: The revision petition will be reconsidered by the High Court uninfluenced by the Section 145 CrPC findings, and the parties will have another opportunity to address the substantive questions of landlord-tenant relationship and rent default. The decision reiterates the limited probative value of Section 145 CrPC proceedings in civil or rent control disputes but sets no new precedent beyond existing Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Prafulla C. Pant, J.— Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7-5-2013, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Surinder Pal Kaur v. Sat Pal 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 9371, (2013) 4 RCR (Civil) 97 whereby the said Court has dismissed the revision.
2. Briefly stated, the factual matrix of the case is that Rana Shiv Gopal Singh and Rani Amarjeet Kaur filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1963 (11 of 1973) for ejectment of Krishan Lal from the premises in question i.e. House No. 8603-5, New No. 542, Block No. 6, Ambala City. After the death of Rana Shiv Gopal Singh and Rani Amarjeet Kaur, the present appellants were substituted as their legal heirs in the proceedings, and after the death of Krishan Lal, the present respondents were impleaded as his legal representatives.
3. It is pleaded by the appellants that they are landlords of House No. 8603-5, New No. 452, Block No. 6, Ambala City, and the respondents are their tenants. The monthly tenancy started from the first date of every calendar month, and the rate of rent was Rs 70 per month. It is alleged in the petition that the tenants failed to make payment of rent with effect from 1-6-1987, and committed default for 25 months. On the ground of default in payment of rent a petition for ejectment was filed in April 1990 before the Rent Controller, Ambala City.
4. A written statement was filed by the original tenant Krishan Lal before the Rent Controller, disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is pleaded in the written statement that the answering respondent was tenant of Deity Shivji and, as such, the appellants have no right, title and interest in the property. It is further pleaded that in the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), Tahsildar, Ambala, was appointed as Receiver. It is stated that the answering respondents have no liability to pay any sum to the appellants.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the respondent is liable for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent?
(ii) Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form?
(iii) Whether the petitioners have got no locus standi to file the petition as they are neither owners nor landlord of the respondent?
6. The Rent Controller, after recording evidence and hearing the parties, accepted the case of the appellants and allowed the application for ejectment of the respondents vide his order dated 22-11-1995. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed Rent Appeal No. 55 of 1996 before the appellate authority. The said authority observed that Rana Shiv Gopal Singh was an employee of the Management Committee of a temple of Murti Shivji. After his removal from the post of Manager, he had no right and authority to collect the rent from the respondents. The appellate authority further took note of the fact that Tahsildar, Ambala, was appointed as Receiver of the property on 21-11-1988 in proceedings under Section 145 CrPC. It is further observed by the said authority that Lala Fakir Chand, President of the Committee (Sabha) of Temple was handed over the premises after the attachment was withdrawn. However, the appellate authority did find that rent receipts were issued by Rana Shiv Gopal Singh and Rani Amarjeet Kaur to the respondents but it held that the same were issued by the appellants in the capacity of the office-bearers of the Management Committee of the temple, as such they cannot maintain the petition under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for eviction of the respondents as the same is not filed in the capacity of the office-bearers of the Management Committee of the temple. For the above reasons, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller.
7. On reversal of the order passed by the Rent Controller, the appellants challenged the order of the appellate authority in revision before the High Court on the ground that the appellate authority has wrongly relied upon the observations and findings recorded in the proceedings drawn under Section 145 CrPC. However, the High Court did not accept the contention that the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC have no bearing to the rent control proceedings. The High Court further observed that the appellants are only skirting the issue relating to their status as landlord. Hence this appeal by way of special leave petition.
8. On behalf of the appellants it is argued that the High Court has erred in rejecting the contention of the appellants that proceedings under Section 145 CrPC have no bearing to the rent control proceedings. It is further argued that the observations made by the authorities in the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC cannot be made the basis for deciding the relationship of landlord and tenant in rent control proceedings.
9. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents our attention is drawn to the copy of the order dated 26-2-1992, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambala, in Case No. 1184 registered under Section 145 CrPC (Annexure R-1 to the counter-affidavit) and the Revisional Court's order dated 12-7-1994, passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 4 of 1992, arisen out of the above proceedings drawn under Section 145 CrPC. It is pointed out that on the date when the appellants filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, the property in question was lying attached, and the Tahsildar was the Receiver.
10. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties on the above point. It is a settled position of law that the observations made in the proceedings drawn under Section 145 CrPC do not bind the competent court in a legal proceedings initiated before it. A decision given under Section 145 CrPC has relevance in evidence to show one or more of the following facts:
(a) That there was a dispute relating to a particular property;
(b) That the dispute was between the parties;
(c) That such dispute led to the passing of a preliminary order under Section 145(1) CrPC or an order of attachment issued under Section 146(1) CrPC; and
(d) That the Magistrate found particular party or parties in possession or fictional possession of the disputed property.
11. In Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi (2004) 1 SCC 438, this Court has held, in para 15, that the reasoning recorded by the Magistrate or other findings arrived at by him have no relevance and are not admissible in evidence before the competent court (except for the limited purposes enumerated above). Also, it was further held in the said case that:
“(1) The words ‘competent court’ as used in sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Code do not necessarily mean a civil court only. A competent court is one which has the jurisdictional competence to determine the question of title or the rights of the parties with regard to the entitlement as to possession over the property forming the subject-matter of proceedings before the Executive Magistrate.”
12. In the light of the principle of law, as above, having gone through the orders passed by the Magistrate under Section 145 CrPC, and the one passed by the revisional authority, arisen out of the said proceedings, we find that the same do not at all relate to the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, nor is there any finding or observation to that effect. What reflects from the aforesaid orders is that there was dispute between two sections of the people as to the nature of the premises whether the same were part of gurdwara or a temple. It is not the case of the respondents that after the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC were drawn, they deposited rent with the Receiver, or any other office-bearer of the Management Committee of the temple.
13. In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court has erred in law in dismissing the revision merely for the reason that the property was under attachment on the date of filing of petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, and the Receiver was appointed in respect of the said property. It is nobody's case that the respondents were not in possession of the property in question as tenants on the said date.
14. Therefore, for the reasons, as discussed above, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned order 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 9371, (2013) 4 RCR (Civil) 97 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication under revisional jurisdiction. We clarify that no observations are made on the merits of the case. No order as to costs.
Alert