Dismissed

Parvinder Kumar v. Surjan Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2012CR/3056/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the High Court dismissed the plea for interference with an appellate order that allowed the ejectment of a sub-tenant. The court held that the landlords' documentary evidence of a rent note and testimony proved non-payment of rent, subletting, and personal necessity, rendering the revision meritless.

What the court decided

AI extract

Parvinder Kumar Vs Surjan Singh and Others — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CIVIL REVISION NO.3056 OF 2012 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 21st MAY 2012

Parvinder Kumar

…. Petitioner

Versus

Col. Surjan Singh & others

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

CM No.13407-CII of 2012

¶14

Allowed as prayed for.

¶15

Main Case

¶16

Alleged sub-tenant Parvinder Kumar has filed this revision petition Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Act) having been defeated by both the Authorities below.

¶17

Colonel Surjan Singh and his wife Gurmej Kaur (respondents No.1 and 2 herein/landlords) filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against Deepak Kumar (respondent No.3 herein) as tenant and against Parvinder Kumar petitioner herein as sub-tenant alleging that the disputed shop had been let out to Deepak Kumar vide rent note dated 13.06.2001. Ejectment was sought on various grounds namely non-payment of rent, subletting of the demised shop by Deepak

¶18

CR No.3056 of 2012(O&M)

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

Kumar to Parvinder Kumar, requirement of the demised shop for personal use and occupation as landlord No.1 intends to set up computer centre business in the demised shop having retired from Indian Army, and his son was also coming back from USA to India to join him in the business and also on the ground that the tenant had made alterations in the demised shop.

¶21

Alleged tenant Deepak Kumar while admitting the tenancy, pleaded that he had repeatedly tendered the rent to the landlords but they had been refusing to receive the same and were insisting to increase the rent. Other grounds of the landlords were also controverted. It was pleaded that he had joined the alleged sub-tenant Parvinder Kumar in demised shop as partner and both of them were running the business in partnership. Later on Deepak Kumar was proceeded against ex parte.

¶22

Parvinder Kumar alleged sub-tenant contested the ejectment petition and controverted the averments made by the landlords. He pleaded that he is directly tenant under the landlords since the year 1998 @ of 200/- per month rent. All grounds of ejectment pleaded by the landlords were controverted. It was denied that Deepak Kumar was inducted as tenant in the demised shop on 13.06.2001. Petitioner herein alleged that he was inducted as tenant in the demised shop on rent @ 200/- per month.

¶23

Learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide order dated 04.06.2011 allowed the ejectment petition on three grounds namely nonpayment of rent, subletting and personal necessity of the landlords.

¶24

Appeal against the said order preferred by Parvinder Kumar has been dismissed by learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar vide

¶25

CR No.3056 of 2012(O&M)

¶26

- 3 -

¶27

judgment dated 28.02.2012. Feeling aggrieved, Parvinder Kumar has filed this revision petition.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

¶29

Landlords have proved rent note dated 13.06.2001 executed by Deepak Kumar for taking the demised shop on rent from the landlords. On the contrary, there is solitary statement of petitioner herein that he had directly taken the demised shop on rent from the landlords. His selfserving oral statement is not sufficient to rebut the documentary evidence in the form of rent note produced by the landlords. The petitioner herein claimed to be tenant in the demised shop directly under the landlords since the year 1998. The ejectment petition was filed on 07.11.2007. However, the petitioner herein has not produced any document on record to depict that he had been occupying the demised shop as tenant directly under the landlords or that he was occupying the demised shop since the year 1998. It is categorical case of the landlords that they let out the demised shop to Deepak Kumar vide rent note dated 13.06.2001. Petitioner herein claimed himself to be in possession of the demised shop since three years prior to it. However, no document regarding the said period has been produced to demolish the version of the landlords.

¶30

Arrears of rent claimed by the landlords were not tendered by the tenant. Nor there is any evidence on record to depict that rent for the disputed period had already been paid. Even petitioner herein has not produced any document on record to depict that he had paid rent of demised shop to the landlords. His oral self-serving statement that he had been paying rent to the landlords cannot be accepted and also stands

¶31

CR No.3056 of 2012(O&M)

¶32

- 4 -

¶33

rebutted by testimony of Surjan Singh-landlord No.1. Consequently due to non-payment of rent, ejectment petition has been rightly allowed. Similarly ground of subletting of the demised shop by Deepak Kumar to Parvinder Kumar has been duly proved because admittedly Parvinder Kumar is now in exclusive possession of the demised shop. Landlords have proved that they had rented out the demised shop to Deepak Kumar vide rent note dated 13.06.2001. Consequently, subletting of demised shop by Deepak Kumar to Parvinder Kumar is also proved. Ground of personal necessity of the landlords is also established because landlord No.1 has retired from Indian Army and wants to set up his own business. It is correct that he stated that his son was presently not intending to return to India. However, this circumstance does not demolish the ground or personal necessity pleaded by the landlords because it was also pleaded by them that landlord No.1 Surjan Singh himself also wants to carry on his own business in the demised shop having retired from Indian Army. Consequently necessity of landlord No.1 for the demised shop to carry on his own business subsists and stands proved.

¶34

For all the aforesaid reasons, the ejectment petition has been rightly allowed by the Authorities below. There is no perversity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders of the Authorities below so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine .

¶35

21^st May, 2012 ‘raj’

¶36

(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE

Parvinder Kumar v. Surjan Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Parvinder Kumar v. Surjan Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Karam Singh Sidhu

Atam Parkash Vs Bhushan Kumar Mukheja

Sushil Kumar Vs Ravinder Kaur

Harcharan Singh Vs Darshan Singh and Anr.

Saurabh Gupta Vs Isha Gupta

Manjit Singh and Anr. Vs Badri Nath and Ors.