SARDARNI KIRPAL KAUR Vs. BHAGWANT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Kuldip Singh owned a Serai in Patiala alongwith some other property. On 29th July 1957 he executed a registered deed of gift in favour of his wife by virtue of which he gifted the Serai to his wife as also another property. He further transferred the leases in her favour in respect of the tenancy of Bhagwant Rai who was occupying the Serai as Kuldip Singh's tenant. The donor died in August 1957. In April 1959 Kirpal Kaur filed an application of eviction against the tenant, Bhagwant Rai, alleging that he had not paid up rent and the arrears amounting to Rs. 33,00/ -. Among other pleas, the tenant raised the plea that Kirpal Kaur was not a landlord within the meaning of section 2(c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. A second application was instituted by her for eviction on the ground that the rent for the subsequent period had not been paid. The same pleas were raised by the tenant in this petition also. The Rent Controller framed an issue as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. It appears that the tenant later on pressed for the framing of an additional issue and the Rent Controller ordered that an additional issue be framed in the following terms -

(2.) THE tenant filed some application under section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act to the effect that he wanted certain repairs to be carried out. In that petition he impleaded not only Kirpal Kaur but also the sons and daughter of Kuldip Singh. In that application also an issue similar to the one framed in the other proceedings has been framed by the Rent Controller and the third Revision No. 391 of 1961 is directed against that order. All the three revision petitions shall stand disposed of by this judgment.

(3.) MR . Babu Ram Aggarwal has invited my attention to certain authorities, out of which mention need be made of Sudhir Kumar Bhattacharjee v. Bibhuti Bhusen Majumdar : A.I.R. 1956 Cal. 668 in which it is laid down that a Special Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide questions which are necessary for the purpose of giving or refusing relief under the particular statute. It is pointed out that the Rent Controller can grant relief only if the relationship of landlord and tenant exists. If it does not exist, then eviction cannot possibly be ordered by the Rent Controller. It is, therefore, for the Rent Controller to decide the question of title of the landlord. Generally speaking that principle may not be open to challenge but in the present case, as stated before, the only objection which has been raised by the tenant to the title of the petitioner is that the gift in her favour by her husband was not valid because the property was coparcenary property. That as held by me before, is a matter which only the sons can agitate and it is not open to the tenant to dispute the validity of the gift. In Mt. Saraswati Kaur v. Mahabir Prasad : A.I.R. 1928 All. 476 (2) a Division Bench consisting of Sulaiman J. (as he then was) and Kendall J. has held that where a father of a joint Hindu family makes gift of some family property to his wife without the consent of the other members of the family the gift is voidable at the instance of other members. An attaching creditor of the father is not entitled to exercise that right in his favour and to get the deed invalidated.