Dismissed

Bharpur Sngh v. Governing Body of R K S D Sr. Sec. Public School

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2008CR/2906/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an eviction order against a petitioner-tenant and his sub-tenant. The High Court held the lower findings on witness testimony and possession were not perverse, upheld the eviction, and granted two months for the tenant to vacate.

What did the court decide?

Time of two months granted to the tenant for alternative arrangement before vacating the shop.

Bharpur Sngh Vs Governing Body of R K S D Sr… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2906 of 2008

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

¶4

Civil Revision No. 2906 of 2008

¶5

Date of Decision: 5.12.2008

¶6

Bharpur Singh

¶7

…Petitioner Versus

¶8

Governing Body of R.K.S.D. Senior Secondary Public School, Kaithal and Another

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶11

Present: Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the respondents.

¶13

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

¶14

Governing Body of R.K.S.D. Senior Secondary Public School, Kaithal, through one Shri Mukesh Kumar Nirwani preferred eviction petition against Bharpur Singh and Babu Ram. It was stated in the eviction petition that property was rented out to Bharpur Singh who had sublet the same to Babu Ram. Along with ground of sub tenancy, another ground taken was that tenant had failed to pay the arrears of rent.

¶15

A written statement was filed by Bharpur Singh in which he had not denied the fact that he was inducted as tenant under the petitioner in the shop in question. Bharpur Singh also admitted qua the

¶16

Civil Revision No. 2906 of 2008

¶17

¶18

above said demised premises, rate of rent, execution of the deed of rent dated 15.1.2003 between him and the petitioner. Further, in the written statement he had also denied his liability to pay one year rent in advance. On merits, averment that he had sub let the premises was stoutly denied.

¶19

Respondent No.2, Babu Ram filed a separate written statement. He opposed the eviction petition that the same is not maintainable and the petitioner has no locus standi to file the eviction petition. He denied that he is in actual physical possession of the tenanted premises as sub tenant of Bharpur Singh.

¶20

Learned Rent Controller held that Bharpur Singh tenant had not paid the rent for the period in question and he had also failed to appear in the Court to depose on oath that the rent was paid in Court. It was held that Bharpur Singh was liable to pay Rs.34,800/- along with interest and cost. He was provided sufficient time to deposit the amount of arrears of rent, which according to counsel for the petitioner, in pursuance to interim order passed on 20.5.2008 by this Court, the arrears of rent have been deposited.

¶21

The second issue of inducting Babu Ram as sub tenant was examined by learned Rent Controller. It was noticed that landlord had examined two witnesses i.e. AW.1 Bahadur Chand son of Suresh and AW.2 Ami Lal Mittal and both have duly proved the factum of subletting.

¶22

Respondent No.1 Bharpur Singh examined Randhir Singh son of Ram Swarup as RW.1, and Suresh Kumar son of Ram Chander as RW.2.

¶23

RW.1 Randhir Singh stated that Babu Ram was a servant of

¶24

Civil Revision No. 2906 of 2008

¶25

¶26

Bharpur Singh and it was held that once it has been admitted that Babu Ram was in possession of the tenanted premises, the onus was upon Bharpur Singh to prove that Babu Ram was not sub tenant.

¶27

Further, it was held that material witness i.e. Bharpur Singh, tenant, with whom rent note was executed and Babu Ram who is in possession have not appeared as witnesses and have not satisfied the Court. The Court said that since material witnesses Bharpur Singh, tenant and Babu Ram, sub tenant, have not appeared in evidence, it is a circumstance against them and regarding the testimony of RW.1 Randhir Singh and RW.2 Suresh Kumar, learned Rent Controller held that these testimonies are wholly unreliable.

¶28

I have heard Mr. A.P. Bhandar, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner-tenant. He is unable to explain as to why Bharpur Singh and Babu Ram have not stepped into the witness box. Learned Counsel is unable to furnish any satisfactory explanation. However, Mr. Bhandari has submitted that the Courts below should have relied upon the testimony of RW.1 Randhir Singh and RW.2 Suresh Kumar, two witnesses examined by the tenant-petitioner.

¶29

Learned Rent Controller has specifically held that both the witnesses are not reliable and it is not safe to place implicit reliance on the testimony. The two Courts below have appreciated the evidence.

¶30

This Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, in order to examine the concurrent findings of two Courts below, based upon documentary and oral evidence, cannot hold the findings to be perverse.

¶31

Therefore, no interference is warranted. Hence, ;the present revision petition is dismissed.

¶32

Civil Revision No. 2906 of 2008 4

¶33

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that adequate time be granted to the petitioner to make alternative arrangement.

¶34

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, two months time is granted to the tenant to vacate the shop.

¶35

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶36

December 5, 2008 “ SKAUSHIK / DK ”

Bharpur Sngh v. Governing Body of R K S D Sr. Sec. Public School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharpur Sngh v. Governing Body of R K S D Sr. Sec. Public School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mittal Trading Co. Bagh Jhanda Singh & Ors. Vs Mohan Lal and Ors.

Sudesh Vs Lashkar Singh

Krishan Lal Vs Kunta Devi and Anr.

Tarlok Kumar Vs Shakti Kumar Markan and Ors.

Pritam Kaur Vs Suresh Kumar

M/S Barista Coffe Co. Ltd. Vs Jagdish Arora & Anr.