VINOD KUMAR Vs. NEELAM CHHABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of two civil revision petitions i.e. C.R. Nos. 235 of 2013 and 3190 of 2011, as common questions of facts and law are involved in both the revision petitions. For dictating the judgment C.R. No. 235 of 2013, Vinod Kumar v. Neelam Chhabra is being taken up. Challenge in the present revision petition i.e. C.R. No. 235 is to the order dated 22.11.2010 whereby, the Rent Controller, Jalandhar allowed the eviction petition of the respondent and ordered ejectment on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The said order has been upheld in appeal by the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar on 18.10.2012 and the same is also subject matter of revision. In C.R. No. 3190 of 2011 filed by the landlady, the order dated 01.02.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority denying the landlady the mesne profits after the ejectment order had been passed is a subject matter of consideration.

(2.) THE dispute in question pertains to the eviction of the petitioner -tenant from the shop in question described in detail in the heading of the eviction petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act'). The shop was part and parcel of property No. IE 80 U and bearing No. 236 -A, Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar. The pleaded case of the respondent was that her father Sahib Dita Mal had rented out the shop to the present petitioner -tenant and he had been paying rent During his lifetime, the father executed a Will dated 21.12.1987 (Ex. A -3) in favour of his legal representatives. It was alleged that the Will was admitted and acted upon by the said legal representatives and the petitioner was made owner of the shop in dispute. However, as per the recital of the Will, the wife of the deceased being the mother of the petitioner namely Jiwan Devi was entitled to get the rent of the shop personally or through the petitioner or through anybody and that was the maintenance to her. The rent had thus been realized through the mother or other persons from the tenant. On account of non -payment of rent, the petitioner and Jiwan Devi had been forced to file ejectment application and also through the attorney/authorized person Mrs. Latika Ahuja. The ejectment application was filed by Mr. Latika Ahuja with the consent of respondent No. 1 as well as Jiwan Devi which had led to the realization of the arrears. A family arrangement dated 21.10.2004 (Ex. A -2) had been entered into on account of some financial difficulties faced by respondent No. 1 and she had shared the same with her mother Jiwan Devi and her brothers. In view of the unemployment of the said respondent, the shop was required by her for running of business and earn her livelihood and, therefore, all the concerned admitted to the terms and conditions of the family arrangement and being the owner/landlord of the property, the petition was filed on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and on account of non -payment of rent from 01.04.2003 @ Rs. 750/ - per month. The ground of material impairment and value utility and making additions and alterations was also alleged by specifically pleading that petitioner neither owned or possessed or had vacated any such property in the municipal area of Jalandhar and accordingly, the petition was filed on 01.12.2004.

(3.) IN the rejoinder to the reply of the tenant, respondent No. 1 again reiterated the allegations and took the plea that on the death of Sahib Dita Mal, she had become owner/landlord qua the petitioner and have been realizing the rent through herself or through her authorized person and Latika Ahuja was not the landlord. The locus standi of the tenant in questioning the validity of the Will was also challenged as it had been admitted by all the legal representatives of the deceased and that the rent had been collected at the instructions of respondent No. 1. The factum that there was no relationship of landlord -tenant was denied and it was averred that since the rent had been tendered on the first day of hearing, there was a relationship and there would be no occasion to tender in case there was no relationship. It was denied that the Will was forged or fabricated or manipulated.