SURINDER MOHAN AGGARWAL Vs. KRISHAN MOHAN MADHOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Surinder Mohan Aggarwal (petitioner-herein) filed application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against Krishan Mohan Madhok respondent for the ejectment of the latter from, building bearing No. B-XIX-154/A situated at Rani Jhansi Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana which is bounded as under:-East:Hem Raj AgarwalWest:StreetNorth:Rani Jhansi RoadSouth:Avinash Kaliashown red in plan Ex. A-1 attached thereto, on the allegations, that he is owner-landlord of this building. One Banarsi Dass Advocate was a tenant in a portion of the building in question at monthly rent of Rs. 550/-. He had sublet the property to the respondent. Petitioner filed application under Section 13 of the Act against Banarsi Dass on a few grounds including the ground of non-payment of rent and subletting in the year 1980 and order of ejectment was passed aainst the respondent and Banarsi Dass by Shri SS Tiwana, Rent Controller, Ludhiana on 19-5-1982. Krishan Mohan Madhok filed appeal which was dismissed on 7-3-1986 by Shri R.L. Anand, Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, Krishan Mohan Madhok went in revision to the High Court, which was allowed on 19-5-1989 and Krishan Mohan Madhok was not held to be subtenant but direct tenant and Banarsi Dass was not held to be tenant. Surinder Mohan Aggarwal petitioner has alleged in this ejectment application filed in March 1992 that Krishan Mohan Madhok has been held to be tenant in the building. The respondent is in possession of the entire building and he has been held to be tenant. He becomes tenant under the petitioner. There is thus relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. It has been further alleged that he is "specified landlord." Earlier, he was in the service of the Government of Himachal Pradesh in the Education Department. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-3-1991. At the time of his retirement from service, he was Principal of Government College, Nalagarh in Himachal Pradesh. He is entitled to receive rent in respect of the building in question on his own account. He requires the building in question for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of his family as residence. After retirement, he has been putting up in the MLA quarters at Simla. Government is not permitting him to keep occupying the MLA quarters at Simla. He belongs to Ludhiana where he holds ancestral property and most of his relation, nears and dears are residing in Ludhiana. In the vicinity where this building is situated number of his close relations are residing. His family consists of his own self, his two daughters and wife. His eldest daughter is married. She often visits him with her family. His second daughter is unmarried. She has passed MBBS and is planning to start practice at Ludhiana after doing MD. His aged father is also to put with him at Ludhiana. He wants to shift to Ludhiana along with his family and reside amongst his nears and dears and close relations. He has no accommodation of his own at Simla. Government is not permitting him to keep occupying MLA quarters at Simla, which he is presently occupying and proceedings for recovery of penal rent from him are pending against him at Simla. He has not vacated any accommodation at Ludhiana without any sufficient cause. He has no other accommodation at Ludhiana except the building in question. So far as respondent is concerned, he has ceased to occupy the building in question. Earlier, he was occupying the building in question. He locked it and shifted to Faridabad about 10 months ago. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he retired on 31-3-1991 from Himachal Pradesh Government service. He has been given certificate by the Joint Secretary, Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh showing his retirement from service w.e.f. 31-3-1991.

(2.) Respondent Krishan Mohan Madhok contested this application. It was denied that the petitioner is owner/landlord of this building. He had filed ejectment application No. 46 of 16-5-1980 against one Banarsi Dass and him alleging himself to be owner/landlord and Banarsi Dass to be tenant. It was alleged in that ejectment application that he had let out the building consisting of three rooms, one verandah, kitchen bath, electric fittings and water tap being part of this building to Banarsi Dass for a period of three months at a rent of Rs. 550/- p.m. and Banarsi Dass had executed rent note in his favour. Banarsi Dass filed written statement admitting the claim of the petitioner. He (Krishan Mohan Madhok) appeared on 18-7-1980 and his counsel made statement before the Court in which it was stated that he (Krishan Mohan Madhok) along with his son Neeraj Madhok are in possession of this building and are direct tenants under Mrs. Goma Mittal alias Oma Mittal wife of Dr. B.K. Mittal at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. Rent up to 29-2-1980 has been paid to Mrs. Goma Mittal alias Oma Mittal. Petitioner is neither the owner nor landlord of the disputed property. He (Krishan Mohan Madhok) offers rent from 1-3-1980 to 31-5-1980 at the rate of Rs. 500/- p.m. amounting to Rs. 1500/- interest Rs. 30/-. costs Rs. 50/- total Rs. 1580/- without prejudice to his rights. Rent Controller passed the following order:-

(3.) Petitioner's counsel made statement where through he refused to accept rent tendered by Krishan Mohan Madhok saying that he was not his tenant. Thereafter. Krishan Mohan Madhok filed written statement, in which he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and Banarsi Dass urging that Banarsi Dass is a practising Advocate and is living in a big residential-cum-office building situated in Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana for the last several years. Banarsi Dass never took this property on rent nor he ever came in possession of this property nor he ever took this property from Banarsi Dass. He denied that there was any subletting of this building by Banarsi Dass in his favour. He rather pleaded that he took this property on rent from Mrs. Goma Mital alias Om Mittal wife of Dr. B.K. Mittal at rental of Rs. 500/- p.m. and he further pleaded that he (Krishan Mohan Madhok) is residing in this property as tenant and he was put in possession by Mrs. Goma Mittal wife of Dr. B.K. Mittal, who had been realising rent from him and rent up to 29-2-1980 stood paid to her. Rs. 1000/- on account of rent was paid to her as per cheque in the name of her son Sh. P.K. Mittal. It was also pleaded by her that the petitioner had no locus standi to file ejectment petition as he was neither owner nor landlord.