Single judge dismissed the revision petition against eviction orders. The court held that the tenant admitted the landlord-tenant relationship but failed to pay rent, and thus lacked the authority to question the landlord's ownership status.
The revision petition was dismissed; the application to place documents on record was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R.No.7319 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 1.9.2010
Sudha Gupta
....Petitioner
Versus
Ravinder Singla
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : Mr.Manu K.Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.J.S.Yadav, Advocate for the respondent.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
This revision petition is directed against the orders of the Rent Controller dated 19.9.2008 and that of the Appellate Authority dated 24.10.2009.
The petitioner was inducted as a tenant by the respondent which fact was admitted by her but she disputed his ownership. She contended that the respondent was not the owner of the property. The ground for eviction was non-payment of rent which the petitioner did not deposit despite opportunity granted to her which led to the passing of the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner moved an application to place on record certain documents, which were obtained under the Right to Information Act, to plead that the respondent was not the owner of the property and neither was one Chhote Lal. This plea was
C.R.No.7319 of 2009 (O&M) -2-
also raised by the petitioner in her written statement and was negatived by the Rent Controller having regard to the fact that the petitioner has not been able to substantiate this plea in the first instance and thereafter before the Appellate Court. The prayer of the petitioner made in the application cannot be allowed in the revision petition wherein he seeks to place some documents on record. Hence the application is dismissed.
Having regard to the controversy in hand, where the only ground for ejectment was non-payment of rent, which liability the petitioner failed to dislodge by depositing the rent, and also for the reason that the petitioner having admitted that the respondent was the landlord, who inducted her as a tenant, and then questioning his status as the owner so as to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner, who does not deposit the rent strikes at the very root of the terms of the tenancy which is a bedrock of relationship between the landlord and tenant. Besides, the tenant has no authority or right to question the ownership of respondent. Such a tenant who denies the relationship of landlord and tenant does not warrant any indulgence in his favour.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that rent has been deposited. I have considered the matter in its entirety. The rent was deposited under the orders of this Court to ensure the interest of the respondent. There is no justifiable reason demonstrated by the petitioner for non-deposit of the rent in the proceedings before the Rent Controller. A crucial right has thus accrued to the landlord and
C.R.No.7319 of 2009 (O&M) -3-
the petitioner a tenant by his conduct has not offered any redeeming
factor to extricate himself from the situation.
Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.
1.9.2010 (MAHESH GROVER)
JUDGE
dss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition challenging the eviction order due to non-payment of rent should be allowed.
Whether a tenant can successfully challenge the landlord's ownership status during eviction proceedings based on non-payment of rent.
Sudha Gupta
Ravinder Singla
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
