YASHPAL SINGLA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below holding that the tenant-petitioner is liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. Both the courts below have found that the tenant-petitioner is in arrears of rent since 1.4.1999. It has further been held that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002(2) PLR 370 : 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 514 (SC) would not be applicable as the tenant-petitioner had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. Reliance has been placed on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Ramanand Shastri v. Gian Singh, 2003(1) RCR(Rent) 735 (P&H) : 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 62 and Hukma Devi v. Bhagwan Dass, 2003(1) RCR(Rent) 533 (P&H) : 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 475, wherein it was been held that when the tenant has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, then the Rent Controller would be under no obligation to pass an assessment order granting an opportunity to the tenant-petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent.

(2.) MR . G.S. Sandhawalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that in the instant case, the protection accorded to the tenant by framing an assessment order in pursuance of the judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) could not be denied merely because the relationship has been denied by the tenant-petitioner. According to the learned counsel the tenant-petitioner has been paying rent to Banarsi Dass, father of the landlord-respondent. According to the learned counsel, the tenant-petitioner has produced on record the receipts of rent paid to Banarsi Dass, father of the landlord-respondent. He has further submitted that in any case the opportunity in pursuance of the judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) should have been afforded to the tenant-petitioner after the findings are recorded by the Rent Controller that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and an assessment order should have been framed calling upon the tenant-petitioner to make payment of rent, failing which he was to face ejectment. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in Sheela and others v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prapagh, 2002(2) PLR 66 : 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 351 (SC) and Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra).

(3.) IT is further clear that the plea of the tenant-petitioner that he, in fact, is tenant of the father of the landlord-respondent, was considered to be without any substance on account of the rent note dated 18.4.1995. The non- payment of arrears of rent with effect from 1.4.1999 has been established and three receipts issued by Banarsi Dass accepting the rent dated 7.5.1999, 3.6.1999 and 5.7.1999 were not accepted as it has been found that tenant- petitioner has been continuously paying rent since 1995 to the landlord- respondent and there was no question of making payment of rent to Banarsi Dass, the father of the landlord-respondent.