SHIV DIAL Vs. SMT. DALJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent is the landlady of the shop in dispute. She filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') some times in 1972. At that time the Act was not applicable to the shops in Chandigarh which has been constructed within 5 years of the date when the sewerage connection was given. In other words, at the material time the Act did not apply to the shop in dispute. The respondent had claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month. This application was dismissed because the petitioner had actually paid arrears of rent and costs etc. on the first date of hearing. In the year 1974 the respondent filed a civil suit for recovery of rent at the rate of R. 900/- per month. This suit was decreed but at the appellate stage the learned counsel for the respondents conceded that the shop in dispute carried a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. This rent was paid and the decree passed in that suit satisfied. In the year 1975 the respondent, after terminating the tenancy of the petitioner, under a notice filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 900/-per month. The Civil Court gave a finding that the shop in dispute carried a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-per month. In that suit, a decree was passed against the respondent against which R.F.A, 249 of 1980 is pending in this Court. In that appeal, the execution of the decree has been stayed by this Court. I might also add that the total rent payable to the respondent was found to be Rs. 2, 600/-

(2.) The respondent then filed another petition under the Act before the learned Rent Controller, claiming ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent from July 1, 1973 to January 31, 1974 at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month. In this application, the petitioner took up the plea that since the respondent herself had terminated the tenancy of the petitioner, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and she was disentitled to file the instant application. The petitioner did not offer arrears of rent on the first date of hearing and the learned Rent Controller ordered his ejectment which order on appeal was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has come in this petition against that order.

(3.) Mr. Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that since the respondent had under notice, terminated the tenancy of the petitioner, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and the respondent could not approach the Rent Controller for seeking the ejectment of the petitioner. There is no merit in the plea raised by Mr. Sibal. The petitioner was inducted into the shop in dispute as a tenant. Even if the respondent had terminated the tenancy by serving a notice on the petitioner, that was done by her in order to get a decree for ejectment of the petitioner and damages on account of use an occupation of the shop in question. The notice had to be given because at one time a view prevail that without terminating the tenancy, the landlord could not file a suit for ejectment of his tenant. The remedied available to the respondent under the Act were of an entirely different type. In a petition filed under that Act, the respondent had only to show that the petitioner had been inducted in the shop as a tenant and that he was in arrears of rent on the date when the petition for ejectment was filed. The only effective answer to such a petition that could be made by the petitioner-tenant was to have offered the rent, costs and interests etc. on the first date of hearing, which admittedly he did not do. The tenant only set up the plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. In other words, instead of paying the rent, he tried to take shelter behind the technicalities and legal pleas. As noticed earlier, once a person is inducted as a tenant, he continues to hold that status for the purpose of a petition for ejectment filed under Act. The learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority appear to have rightly decided this matter against the petitioner.