KULTAR SINGH Vs. MONIKA CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/tenant-Kultar Singh has filed civil revision against impugned common judgment dtd. 10/7/2023 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar vide which the appeals preferred by Kultar Singh and Charanjit Singh against the order dtd. 10/9/2018 passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar was dismissed.

(2.) As per the facts of the case, Monika Chopra, the landlady (petitioner in the main case) filed ejectment petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act amended upto date for the eviction of respondents No. 1 and 2 from demised shop bounded as North : Monga electric, South: Property of petitioner, East: National Guest House and West: Road, which is a part of property bearing No. EK-231/1 Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar. Brief facts of the petition are that the abovementioned demised shop was originally owned by Col. Veeramol Singh and Major Haramol Singh, who sold the same to the petitioner vide sale deeds dtd. 4/5/2015 and 25/5/2015. As such, the petitioner had became owner/landlady of the demised shop as detailed in the head note of the petition. Col. Veeramol Singh and Major Haramol Singh rented out the shop to Kultar Singh at the rate of Rs.1600.00per month. Since, the demised shop has been purchased by the petitioner from its real owners, therefore, relationship qua the property in question as a landlord and tenant stands established between Monika Chopra the landlady and Kultar Singh the tenant. The petitioner previously was not fully aware regarding the actual facts and later on came to know that respondent No. 2 was not the tenant, rather, his status over the shop of the petitioner was as a sub-tenant. After purchasing the property, the petitioner made thorough inquiry and came to know that Veeramol Singh and Haramol Singh rented out the shop to Kultar Singh respondent No. 1, who later on had sublet the shop to respondent No. 2 without the knowledge and consent of the landlord for a valuable consideration and this fact was not in the knowledge of the petitioner either at the time when the property was purchased and another petition was filed by her against another sitting tenant, which is also pending in Court. It was further submitted that Kultar Singh had constructed a big complex and said complex is now known by the name Sangam Complex having number of shops, some of the shops were sold or rented out by said Kultar Singh to different persons and was also doing his own work in the said complex under the name and style Seamens Industrial Electrical Company. In the disputed shop after subletting the same to respondent No. 2, Kultar Singh was left with no right, title, interest, concern or connection and had started his independent business in his own shop in Sangam Complex. On the other hand, respondent No. 2 had started his business in the shop in question under the name and style Seamens Electrical Store, which was being run by respondent No. 2 independently as a proprietor. The property was purchased by the petitioner for her own personal necessity, however, since the tenant had sublet the shop and presently sub-tenant was running the shop, therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to file application on the ground of personal necessity against the sub-tenant as the original tenant was not in occupation or in possession over the shop in question. Therefore, the petitioner reserved her right for personal necessity and the petition was filed under the ground of sub letting. The respondents were liable to be ejected from the shop in question on the grounds that the respondent No. 1 being tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 1/6/2015 till the filing of the present petition at the rate of Rs.1600.00per month, which he had neither tendered/offered nor deposited. It was further submitted that the respondent No. 1 had sublet the shop to respondent No. 2 since 2009 and from that day, respondent No. 2 was in possession, occupation and control over the shop as a sub-tenant and was doing his independent business under the name and style of Seamens Electrical Store. The petitioner did not have any such like property within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. The petitioner at number of times demanded arrears of rent from the tenant and had been requesting the respondents to vacate the shop but they refused to do so. Hence, the present petition for ejectment of respondents from the demised shop.

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to the respondents who contested the present petition and filed joint written reply, wherein they had taken preliminary objections regarding maintainability; not coming to the Court with clean hands; suppressing the true facts and no cause of action. On merits, it was denied that the property was sold to petitioner vide sale deeds dtd. 4/5/2015 and 25/5/2015 as alleged. The relationship of landlord and tenant was also denied by the answering respondents with the petitioner. It was alleged that the shop was rented out to respondent No. 1 by Col. Veeramol Singh and Maj. Haramol Singh at the rate of rent of Rs.1550.00per month and not at the rate of Rs.1600.00per month, as alleged by the petitioner. It was further submitted that if there existed correct and legal sale deeds in favour of the petitioner, in that event, respondent No. 1 would have no objection in giving the rent to the petitioner. The respondents are related to each other, as respondent No. 2 is nephew of respondent No. 1 and due to the fact that respondent No. 1 was not keeping good health, the respondent No. 2 used to help respondent No. 1 in his business. The fact regarding subletting the demised shop to respondent No. 2 was denied. It was further denied that respondent No. 1 constructed big complex i.e. Sangam Complex. However, partnership business is there under the name and style of Seamens Industrial Electric Company and there are four partners in the said concern. The story regarding subletting was denied. Therefore, the petition deserved dismissal with cost.