GIAN CHAND Vs. SURINDER PARKASH MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of a suit for recovery of rent. The facts giving rise to the suit are these :

(2.) UNDISPUTABLY Surinder Parkash Malhotra, the plaintiff-respondent herein, kept receiving rent from Gian Chand, defendant-petitioner, till the end of December, 1977 at the rate stipulated. As the case of defendant-petitioner goes, money orders Exhibits DX and DY were sent by the petitioner to Surinder Parkash Malhotra, respondent, but they were refused. Thereafter, on 12th, March, 1981. Om Parkash Malhotra, the owner of the house, recovered the arrears of rent from tenant and executed a receipt Exhibit D. 3 on that day. Simultaneously, vide registered deed Exhibit D. 1, he sold the house to Shrimati Nirmal wife of Gian Chand tenant. It is in this background that on 28th May, 1981, Surinder Parkash Malhotra, plaintiff-respondent, filed a suit for recovery of rent due from 1st June, 1978 to 28th February, 1981. It was specifically stated therein that claim of the plaintiff for arrears of rent from 1st January, 1978 to 31st May, 1978 had become time-barred and as such, was not being laid. The sum assessed was, thus, Rs. 1650/-. The plaintiff had based his case solely on the ground that he was the landlord, and during the continuance of the tenancy his title could not be denied. The defence of the defendant, on the other hand, was that when he had paid the arrears of rent to Om Parkash Malhotra over and above the period in question, the suit did not lie.

(3.) ON the evidence led by the parties, the aforementioned crucial issue was decided against the plaintiff. The other issue whether the defendant was entitled to special costs was decided against the defendant. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Patiala, which was allowed and hence the revision. The sole question which crops up for consideration in this petition is: Does the law permit each and every landlord which comes within the ambit of law to recover the arrears of the rent from a tenant? Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent wishes a diversion in the question by contending that since it was a civil suit and not a rent application to recover arrears of rent under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, the wider meaning of the word 'landlord' as given in Section 2(C) of the said Act, was not applicable. According to him, the definition of the word 'landlord' as known restrictedly in the Transfer of Property Act should be employed to the term in the question posed. It would be appropriate to juxtapose the provisions :