Dismissed

Kirna v. Daya Wanti

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2012CR/3095/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an ex parte ejectment order dismissing a tenant who failed to appear after calling counsel. The High Court found the lower authorities correct in proving the landlord-tenancy relationship and grounds for ejectment via unrebutted evidence from the landlady.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed in limine; impugned orders of Below Authorities affirmed.

Kirna Vs Daya Wanti — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CIVIL REVISION NO.3095 OF 2012 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd MAY 2012

Kirna

…. Petitioner

Versus

Daya Wanti

…. Respondents

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

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. Amarjit Singh Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Kirna alleged tenant (for convenience, referred to as tenant) has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

¶14

Respondent-landlady Daya Wanti filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against petitioner Kirna alleging that the landlady let out the demised house to the tenant @ `3,000/- per month rent w.e.f. 04.02.2006. Ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent since 04.03.2006 onwards and also on the ground of necessity of the demised property by the landlady for her own use and occupation.

¶15

The tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was alleged that the tenant had raised loan from the landlady and for the same, mortgage deed was to be executed but the landlady by fraud obtained sale deed dated 29.03.2004, which is null and void. Landlady has also filed complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable

¶16

CR No.3095 of 2012

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

Instruments Act, 1881 against the tenant. It was denied that demised house was let out to the tenant by the landlady or any rent note was executed. The rent note is also forged and fabricated. Grounds of ejectment pleaded by the landlady were also controverted. At the stage of cross-examination of the landlady as witness, counsel for the tenant pleaded ‘no instructions’ and since none else appeared for the tenant, she was proceeded ex parte.

¶19

Learned Rent Controller, Patiala vide order dated 04.05.2010 allowed the ejectment petition. Appeal against the said order preferred by tenant has been dismissed by learned Appellate Authority, Patiala vide judgment dated 22.02.2012. Feeling aggrieved, tenant has filed this revision petition.

¶20

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

¶21

The landlady has produced sale deed of the demised house executed in his favour by the tenant. She has also produced rent note executed by tenant in favour of the landlady. Testimony of the landlady also stands unrebutted. From this unrebutted oral and documentary evidence, it has been rightly found by the Authorities below that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and since the tenant did not tender rent, she is liable to ejectment on this ground. Ground of personal necessity of the landlady is also proved from her unrebutted evidence.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner contended that when counsel for the tenant before the Rent Controller pleaded ‘no instructions’, notice should have been issued to the tenant by the Rent Controller. The contention

¶23

CR No.3095 of 2012

¶24

- 3 -

¶25

cannot be accepted. If this procedure is followed, then it will give a very easy handle to the tenant to delay the proceedings of the ejectment petition. After service of notice, the tenant would engage a counsel who after putting up appearance on some dates of hearing would plead ‘no instructions’ and then again notice would have to be served on tenant and it would take time and this process can be repeated by the tenant. This is not permissible. Once the tenant was served and also put in appearance through counsel and kept on appearing through counsel on several dates of hearing, there was no necessity for the Rent Controller to issue notice to the tenant again when his counsel pleaded ‘no instructions’.

¶26

In the aforesaid context, it is also highly significant to notice that the tenant was proceeded against ex parte by the Rent Controller vide order dated 18.09.2008. Thereafter the ejectment petition was adjourned for seventeen dates of hearing till it was eventually decided on 04.05.2010. However, even on those seventeen dates of hearing spanning a period of more than 19 months, none appeared for the tenant before the Rent Controller. At least, during the said long period, the tenant could have contacted her counsel to find out the fate or status of the ejectment petition.

¶27

It is also significant to notice that the tenant did not file application before the Rent Controller for setting aside the ejectment order. On the contrary, tenant filed an appeal against ex parte ejectment order passed by Rent Controller On merits, ejectment order was rightly passed because from unrebutted evidence of the landlady, which is cogent and reliable, relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties stood proved and both grounds of ejectment were also proved. In fact, it is not

¶28

CR No.3095 of 2012

¶29

- 4 -

¶30

even the case of the tenant that she had paid rent for the disputed period to the landlady and thus ground of non-payment of rent to order ejectment of the tenant is undisputed once the relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties is held proved. Ground of personal necessity of the landlady is also established from her unrebutted cogent evidence.

¶31

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned orders of the Authorities below do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine .

¶32

22^nd May, 2012 (L. N. MITTAL) ‘raj’ JUDGE

Kirna v. Daya Wanti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirna v. Daya Wanti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvinder Kumar Vs Surjan Singh and Others

Harcharan Singh Vs Darshan Singh and Anr.

Saurabh Gupta Vs Isha Gupta

Malkiat Singh Vs Rachhpal Singh and Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors.

Rampal Vs Jagdish and Ors.