SAT PAL MAHAJAN Vs. RAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The shop in dispute was owned by Durga Dass who leased it out to Sat Pal, respondent. Respondent Ram Parkash, claiming himself to be his son, filed this application for ejectment of the tenant on the grounds of non-payment of rent and sub-letting. The alleged sub-tenant Pawan Kumar in his written statement denied that he was in possession of the demised premises. Sat Pal tenant disputed the parentage of the respondent and alleged him to be the son of one of the daughters of Durga Dass. He denied rest of the allegations and also pleaded that Ram Parkash alone was not competent to maintain the petition as Durga Dass had left behind five daughters who were his heirs under the Hindu Succession Act.

(2.) As the arrears of rent had been tendered on the first date of hearing the ground of ejectment which survived was only of sub-letting. The Rent Controller upheld the plea of the landlord in this respect but dismissed the petition on the ground that Ram parkash was not the only heir of Durga Dass and, therefore, the petition by him alone was not competent. It was also held that one Manohar Lal was the joint tenant with Sat Pal and he having been not impleaded as a party, the petition was not maintainable against Sat Pal alone. In the appeal, no attempt was made by the tenant to support the order of the Rent Controller on the ground that Manohar Lal was a necessary party. Otherwise also, it was nobody's case that Manohar Lal continued to be a tenant or was in possession of the disputed shop when the ejectment application was filed. The controversy between the parties, therefore, centered around the other question as to whether Ram Parkash alone could maintain the ejectment application. The Appellate Authority rejected the plea of the tenant on two grounds, namely, that according to the decision of this Court in Sarwin Singh v. Kaur Chand and others, 1969 CurLJ 989, one of landlords alone was competent to file an ejectment application and that on facts Ram Parkash was proved to be the landlord as defined in Section 2(c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act). As a consequence of the said finding the petition was allowed and the ejectment order passed vide judgment dated April 30, 1981. Aggrieved thereby the tenant has come up in this revision petition under Section 15 of the Act.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued to the landlord as the tenant placed his reliance on Birbhan v. Kuldip Parkash and others,1979 1 RLR 312, wherein I had held that one of the joint landlords alone was not competent to file ejectment petition. My decision was, however, over-ruled by a Division Bench in Ram Piari v. Dr. Kesho Ram,1980 2 RCR 137. Reliance in Ram Piari's case was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak and others, 1977 AIR(SC) 1599 but nothing said therein supports the view taken by the Division Bench. However, it is not necessary to dilated upon this matter or to refer the question to the full Bench because it was rightly held that Ram parkash was covered by the term 'landlord' as defined in Section 2 of the Act. The 'landlord' according to the said definition means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf of or for the benefit, of any other person, or ......... One of his witnesses and the tenant himself admitted that since the death of Durga Dass, Ram Parkash had been realizing the rent though the tenant further added that he had been so doing by filing the ejectment application. It is, therefore, apparent that the five sisters of Ram Parkash had never claimed any rent nor objected to the realisation of the rent by Ram Parkash of the shop in dispute. The tenant has also admitted the payment of the rent to him, may be only under threat of ejectment. On these facts, the conclusion is irresistible that Ram Parkash had been realizing the rent with the express or implied consent of the other co-owners. Once it is so held the case would be fully covered by the rule laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kanta Goel's case and Ram Parkash would be covered by the term 'landlord' as defined in the Act. Therefore, the petition for ejectment by him alone was rightly held to be competent by the Appellate Authority.