Chandigarh: Tenant no one to question family settlement

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Chandigarh, March 7

A tenant is no one to question the family settlement or the pedigree of the landlord.

Observing this, Chetesh Gupta, Rent Controller, ordered for the eviction of M/s Banwari Lal and Sons from the ground floor (portion) of SCO 1-A, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh. The Rent Controller has pronounced the eviction order on a petition filed by Shivalik Construction and Estate Private Limited through advocate Anuj Raura under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to the UT for eviction of respondents.

The late Darshan Singh, a promoter of the company, had executed a lease deed with respondent M/s Banwari Lal and Sons for the premises through its partner Vinod Kumar Goel on July 7, 2003. Navinder Singh, director of the company, had filed the petition. Besides, Navinder Singh has sought the eviction on the grounds of personal necessity.

On the other hand, the respondents challenged the petition by claiming that Darshan Singh had been making requests for enhancement of rent and had never disclosed the personal requirement angle. The premises cannot be vacated for the use and occupation of Navinder Singh or of Darshan Singh as the building is owned by a company, whose requirement has not been projected at all.

They also said Navinder Singh was not the grandson of Darshan Singh as there was no adoption deed. So, Navinder Singh has no locus standi to file the present petition. They also asserted that Darshan Singh was a promoter of the company and the rent deed was executed by him on behalf of the company. Therefore, the legal heirs of Darshan Singh were not competent to file the present petition as the company was the real executant of the lease deed being the owner of the premises.

On the other hand, Anuj Raura, counsel for the petitioners, said there was no mandate that only an owner could file an eviction petition. He said Darshan Singh had sought eviction of the respondents stating the need of Navinder Singh, which was maintainable in law. Further, due to the death of Darshan Singh during the pendency of the rent petition, his legal heirs, including Navinder Singh, had stepped into his shoes and were a party to the present petition. Thus, the plea of the respondents that the petition could only be filed for requirement of petitioner number 2 (company) and nobody else was unfounded.

After hearing the arguments, the Rent Controller said Navinder Singh had been receiving rent from the respondents qua the premises; so, the respondents could not dispute the locus standi of Navinder Singh and the fact that he was the landlord qua the respondents. Moreover, as per the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rakesh Kumar versus Joginder Singh and Bhagat Singh versus Jagdish Kaur cases, the need of the landlord would include the need of his family members, and since the rent deed was executed by Darshan Singh, he being the landlord, was well within his right to seek direction for the need and necessity of his grandson. So far as the argument of the counsel for the respondent that the adoption deed had not been produced is concerned, it is a settled law that in proceeding before the Rent Controller, the tenant is no one to question the family settlement or the pedigree of the landlord.