HARKUNBH RAI Vs. PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 25th July, 1980 confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Parkash Chand, landlord-respondent herein, made an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the petitioner-tenant Harkunbh Rai for securing his eviction from the premises in dispute on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.4.1965 and that he had demolished the western wall of the aforesaid premises thereby impairing its utility. The tenant resisted the petition and denied the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and further went on to say that he had got the premises along with the adjoining shop on lease from Kishori Lal father of the landlord and had duly executed a rent note in favour of Kishori Lal on 12.1.1967. He also claimed that the rent upto 31.12.1971 had been paid to Kishori Lal and the rent for the subsequent period sent to him through money orders had not been accepted. It is also urged that the disputed property was, in fact, a property of the Hindu Joint Family and Kishori Lal aforesaid was the Karta thereof. The Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(2.) IT has been urged by Mr. J. R. Mittal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner that it has been found by the Courts below that the story with regard to the demolition of the wall has been found to be false and the only issue that survived was with regard to the non-payment of rent. It has also been urged that as the relationship of landlord qua the petitioner and Parkash Chand had been denied the crucial question that would arise, would be as to whether such a relationship did exist between the two and if it was found so to exist, the petition was liable to dismissal. The Courts below in determining the question of relationship inter se between the parties had placed reliance on Ex. P1, the rent note that was said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of Parkash Chand-respondent. The Courts relied on the evidence adduced in the case including the reports of the Handwriting and Finger Print Experts produced by the respective parties i.e. Inder Bhushan Bhatnagar and Diwan K. S. Puri on behalf of the landlord and Sh. K. C. Jaiduka for the respondent-petitioner and came to the conclusion that the rent note Ex.P1 had been executed by the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel has, therefore, tried to dislodge this finding by urging with some vehemence that in the earlier litigation between Satpal the brother of Parkash Chand, respondent and the present petitioner with regard to the adjoining shop which also was in possession of the petitioner as a tenant, a finding had been recorded that Kishori Lal was, in fact, the landlord of the entire premises i.e. including the shop which is the subject matter of the dispute in the present case and that Kishori Lal was also the KARTA of the joint family of himself and his sons.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel on this aspect and find that the rent note Ex.P1 has been duly proved and in the light of this situation, the assertion that the finding in the earlier suit between Satpal and the petitioner that Kishori Lal was the landlord of the adjoining shop would not have any relevance. Mr. Mittal's submission placing reliance upon Sahu Madho Dass and others v. Mukand Ram and others, AIR 1955 S.C. 481 that a finding in the earlier suit was binding on the parties herein, is misplaced. A bare reading of this judgment would indicate that the maximum that could be said with regard to the earlier litigation was, it could form a precedent to a certain extent and no more. Mr. Sarin, to counter this argument has placed reliance on R. Vishwanathan and others v. Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid since deceased and others, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1, in which it has been held with reference to Section 40 to Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, that a judgment in rem was contemplated only in a specific class of cases and admittedly the dispute with regard to the relationship inter se between the landlord and a tenant is not covered thereby. Even, therefore, assuming for a moment that there was some evidence to show relationship inter se in the shape of the judgment in the earlier proceedings that judgment could not be even termed to be precedent in the present proceedings.