PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. SATYA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Shri H. S. Bagga had filed an ejectment application on April 19, 1988 under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against Smt. Paramjit Kaur - tenant (the present petitioner) for her ejectment from the premises in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent with effect from August, 1986 to April, 1987 at the rate of Rs. 1160/-per month and Rs. 1276/- per month from May, 1987 to the date of filing of the ejectment application. There were some other grounds also taken with which we are not concerned. During the pendency of the petition before the Rent Controller, the present respondents purchased the property in question vide registered sale-deed dated June 15, 1992. The vendees got themselves substituted in place of the original landlord and pursued the ejectment application. The Rent Controller vide its order dated April 15, 1994 found that the tenant (present petitioner) was in arrears of rent and, therefore, an order of ejectment was passed. The Appellate Authority upheld the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant on February 1, 1996. The tenant has come up in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following points :

(2.) IN support of Point No. (i) learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there has to be assignment of right in the sale deed to recover the arrears of rent, if any, from the tenant and since there was no such assignment or a recital in the sale-deed Ex. P. 1, the subsequent-landlord i. e. the vendees (respondents herein) could not continue with the ejectment petition filed by the original landlord. In support of her contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Hari Krishan by LRs. v. Smt. Krishna Mohini, (1990-2)98 P. 1. R. 589, learned counsel for the respondents however, submitted that there was an assignment regarding the right to claim the arrears of rent etc. in the sale-deed Ex. P. 1. He referred to certain lines in the sale deed, Ex. P. 1, in which it is mentioned that out of the land, which was being sold through Ex. P1, certain area on which a Dharam Kant a has been installed, has been given on rent to Smt. Paramjit Kaur wife of Sh. Barjinder Pal Singh, resident of H. No. A-3/26, Janakpuri, New Delhi and further it is mentioned that "jiski Babat Wasooli Wagera Ke Liye Mujhe Hak Hakuk The Kareta Ko Hassil Honge, Koi Ujjar Na Hoga. '

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the recital in the sale deed, to which reference has already been made above, really assigned the right to realise the arrears of rent to the vendees and on that basis the vendees were substituted in place of landlord in the proceedings. Even if there is any doubt in interpreting the same, the intention of the parties to assign that right to the vendees can be gathered from the agreement to sell. In the agreement to sell it is mentioned that in lieu of the arrears of rent due from the tenant the vendor had been paid Rs. 50,000/- by the vendees and it has further been mentioned that the vendees have the right to realise the arrears of rent from the tenant. Even General Power of Attorney, duly registered, was given for the purpose by the vendor to the vendees. It is clear from the recital in the sale-deed that the intention was to assign the right to recover the arrears of rent to the vendees. It may also be observed here that this point was never raised in the Courts below.