RAM CHANDRA DAS Vs. HIRALAL MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application has sought for quashing cf the decision of the House Rent Controller confirmed in appeal directing his eviction from the premises in question by issue of a writ of certionari.

(2.) Opposite party No 1 filed an application under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act (for short, 'the Act') in Oct. 1975 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent since 1-9-1970. He alleged that the petitioner was inducted by him as a tenant on 21-8-1966 at a monthly rental of Rs. 125/-. Though the contractual period was three years the petitioner continued as a statutory tenant thereafter. In spite of repeated demands, the petitioner failed to pay and such default was wilful. It was further averred that a suit for realisation of arrears of rent had been decreed against the petitioner by the civil court. In reply, the petitioner challenged the locus standi of opposite party No. 1 as trustee of any trust called 'Parvati Bat Estate'. He asserted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between opposite party No. 1 and him, and the action for eviction was, therefore, not maintainable. The petitioner further asserted that he had not executed any agreement on 21-8-1966 in favour of opposite party No. 1. He controverted that be was not regular in the matter of payment of rent. His positive case was that the premises in question were occupied by one Radha-shyam Mohanty and him as tenants when they were carrying on business as partners. After dissolution of the partnership, he alone continued as a tenant and executed an unregistered lease deed in favour of his landlady Smt. Parvati Bai on 21-8-1966 stipulating to be in occupation as a tenant at a monthly rental of Rs, 125/-. In the said document, opposite party No. 1 featured as an agent for and on behalf of Smt. Parvati Bai. He used to collect rent on behalf of Parvati Bai and not on his own behalf. Towards the later part of 1970, Parvati Bai expired and the agency of opposite party No. 1 came to an end Since the death of Parvati Bai, none had approached him to collect rent. So, there was no question of his being in default. He asserted that the prefixal mark , ' , appearing before the name of Parvati Bai in the document was an interpolation.

(3.) The House Rent Controller recorded the following findings: (a) Opposite party No. 1 was a de facto trustee; (b) Otherwise also, he was the 'landlord' within the definition of Section 2 (4) of the Act; (c) An application at his instance was maintainable; (d) The agreement dated 21-8-1966 (Ext. 3) was admissible for collateral purposes and (e) The petitioner was a defaulter having failed to pay rent in spite of repeated demands. On the findings aforesaid the Controller directed eviction of the petitioner. In appeal, the appellate court held that Ext. 3 was genuine and the prefixal mark placed before the name of Parvati Bai in the document had been put by the petitioner who had scribed the document himself and executed the same. The prefixal mark, in this part, was put where the person was dead. So by 218-1966 Parvati Bai was dead. It disbelieved the petitioner's case that Parvati Bai died in the later part of 1970. It further took the probabilities and circumstances into consideration and held "Parvati Bai was dead long back and she was not alive at time of execution of Ext. 3." The further finding of the appellate court is that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by opposite party No. 1 on 21-8-1966 and opposite party No. 1 w,as entitled to realise rent. So, he was the landlord within the meaning of section 2 (4) of the Act and the petitioner, being a wilful defaulter, was liable to be evicted.