SHAMMI KAPUR Vs. RAGHBIR KAUR & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As regard the ownership of Industrial Plot No. 380, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh is concerned, in his examination in Chief, PW-1 Manpreet Singh Doabia has stated that neither he is an occupation or use of any other nonresidential building of Chandigarh and nor he has vacated any such building, as is the requirement under the statute. In the cross-examination, no suggestion was put that the landlord is in possession of any other non-residential building. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon 2013 (2) RCR (Rent) 230 titled as "Arvind Kumar and another v. Sudesh Kumari"; 2013 (4) CCC 581 titled as "Ram Paul v. Vijay Kumar and others"; 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 250 titled as "M/s Bhatia Cloth house v. Dr Raj Kumar Gupta and another";

(2.) He has further argued that the said Industrial plot was sold vide an agreement to sell, registered GPA and registered will all dated 22/11/1999 and as per clause 3 of the agreement to sell, possession was given and thus, it cannot be stated that it is a created document. It was submitted that as per section 202 of the Contract Act, this transaction would tantamount to sale because the agent (i.e vendee in this case) had acquired an interest in the property and thus, for all intents and purposes, the said vendee had become owner of the Industrial Plot. It was argued that in any case, it is between the contractual parties or the exchequer-State and the petitioner-tenant is no one to question such a sale, being a third-party.

(3.) As far as the argument regarding ownership in possession of a booth is concerned, it has been argued that firstly, the said booth is measuring 8' x 16' which was not in landlord's possession at the time of filing the eviction petition as also when evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was being lead and no suggestion qua possession was put, except to PW-1 who admits in his cross-examination on 15.10.2012 that the said booth came into possession in August, 2012. However, it was submitted that PW-1 Manpreet Singh had executed his affidavit by way of examination in Chief on 21/01/2010 and on that day landlords were not in possession of the property. Secondly, in any case it is for the landlord to decide as to which property is more suitable for him for his necessity and tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord.