- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bakhtawar Singh v. Gurdev Singh
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff is the owner of a shop which was rented out to the defendant under an oral tenancy coupled with delivery of possession. The rent was initially Rs. 200 per month, later increased to Rs. 500 and then Rs. 1000 per month. The defendant was irregular in paying rent and ceased payment for two years. The shop required urgent repairs and was also needed by the plaintiff for personal use. Consequently, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy by a notice dated 12.01.2011. The defendant failed to vacate the premises, leading to the filing of this suit for possession and related reliefs.
The defendant appeared and filed a written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi of the plaintiff, validity of the notice, court fee valuation, and cause of action. On merits, the defendant denied the plaintiff’s claims and sought dismissal of the suit. No replication was filed.
The trial court framed five issues, including entitlement to possession, permanent injunction, recovery of mesne profits, maintainability of the suit, and relief. After evidence, the trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff on 21.11.2013.
The defendant appealed, but the Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal on 14.08.2015. Dissatisfied, the defendant filed the present regular second appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the learned courts failed to properly appreciate the documents on record?
- Whether the judgments and decrees of the courts below are sustainable in view of the facts and circumstances?
- Whether the judgments and decrees of the courts below are non-speaking?
- Whether the judgments and decrees of the courts below are perverse and liable to be reversed?
- Whether the learned courts misread and misinterpreted the evidence on record?
- Whether the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is valid in law?
- Whether the respondent can maintain the suit for possession without proving ownership of the suit property?
- Whether the learned Additional District Judge erred in dismissing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC without valid reasons?
- Whether the respondent concealed material facts?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was defective and invalid.
- The plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the suit property.
- Relied on the authority of Sheela v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash (2002 (1) RCR (Rent) 351) to support their contentions.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sheela v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, 2002 (1) RCR (Rent) 351 | Application of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 in eviction matters | The court distinguished this precedent as it related to a different statute and facts; eviction was upheld under Section 12(1)(h) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, which did not apply to the present case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the appellant’s challenge to the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, noting that the notice period was one month, exceeding the statutory minimum of fifteen days. The court held that a longer notice period cannot be deemed invalid.
Regarding the ownership issue, the court observed that the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted and ownership was not denied in the written statement. It is settled law that a tenant must surrender possession upon termination of the tenancy.
The court found no merit in the appellant’s grounds, including the reliance on the Sheela case, which was distinguishable. Consequently, the court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal.
The court ordered the appellant to vacate the premises within six months upon payment of mesne profits at Rs. 5000 per month, with provision for earlier execution of decree in case of default.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed for lack of merit.
As a consequence, the defendant/appellant is directed to vacate the premises within six months, subject to payment of mesne profits. Failure to pay mesne profits for two consecutive months allows the landlord to execute the decree earlier with arrears of rent. The decision affirms the judgments and decrees of the courts below without setting any new precedent.
K.C Puri, J.:— This is an appeal directed by defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2015 passed by Shri Sandeep Singh Bajwa, Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2013 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff is owner of the shop in dispute and same was given to defendant on rent. Tenancy was oral one and coupled with delivery of possession. Initial rate of rent was fixed as Rs. 200/- per month excluding the electricity and other charges. Thereafter, the rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 500/- per month and then for Rs. 1000/- per month. The defendant not being good tenant was highly irregular in paying rent and stopped payment for the last two years. Besides this, shop in question also requires urgent repair and same is also required by the plaintiff for his personal use and occupation. On all these accounts, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant vide notice dated 12.01.2011 Despite notice, defendant failed to vacate the demised premises. Hence this suit.
3. Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections as to maintainability of the suit in the present form and challenged the locus standi of the plaintiff. Further objections as to the notice given by the plaintiff has been raised by the defendant as the same being illegal and mala-fide and invalid. Objections regarding value of the court fee and no cause of action have also been taken. On merits, the defendant denied other averments and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Replication was not filed. From the pleading of the parties following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property as prayed? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of means profits as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
5. Relief.
5. The parties have led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issues. The trial Court after appraisal of the evidence vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2013, decreed the suit of the plaintiff.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred First appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 14.08.2015 dismissed the appeal of the defendant.
7. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and decrees dated 21.11.2013 and 14.08.2015, the present regular second appeal has been directed by the defendant/appellant.
8. The appellant in paragraph No. 06 of the grounds of appeal, has mentioned that following substantial questions of law have arisen in the present regular second appeal:-
(a) Whether the Ld. Court have failed to appreciate to appreciate the documents on record?
(b) Whether the judgments and decrees of the courts below are sustainable in view of facts and circumstances mentioned above?
(c) Whether the judgments and decrees of the Ld. Courts below are non-speaking?
(d) Whether judgments and decrees of the courts below are perverse and liable to be reversed?
(e) Whether the Ld. Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the evidence on record?
(f) Whether the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is valid in the eyes of law?
(g) Whether the respondent can maintain the suit for possession once he has failed to prove his ownership over the suit property?
(h) Whether the Ld. Addl. District Judge has grossly erred in dismissing the application under order 41 rule 27 CPC without assigning any valid reason?
(i) Whether the respondent has concealed the material facts?
9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the case file with her able assistance.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below on two grounds firstly that notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is defective and the other ground taken by the defendant/appellant is that plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon authority Sheela v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash reported in 2002 (1) RCR (Rent) 351.
11. I have considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.
12. No defect in notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been pointed out except that it is for one month whereas the notice should have been for a period of fifteen days. The intention of the Parliament in enacting Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was to give notice of at-least fifteen days for vacating the premises. Notice for longer period i.e one month cannot be said to be invalid.
13. So far as authority Sheela's case (supra) is concerned the said authority relates to M.P Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Otherwise also, in that case eviction order was upheld under Section 12(1)(h) of the M.P Accommodation Control Act, 1961. So, that authority is distinguishable to the facts of the present case.
14. The relationship of landlord and tenant has been admitted in the written statement. The ownership has not been denied in para No. 1 of the written statement. It is settled law that tenant is bound to surrender the possession of the landlord after termination of the contract. So, I have no hesitation in holding that no substantial question of law has arisen in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, the appellant shall vacate the premises within six months on payment of mesne profits to the extent of Rs. 5000/- per month. In case of default of payment of two consecutive mesne profits, the landlord shall be at liberty to get the decree executed even prior to six months along with arrears of rent.
15. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
Alert