M.M. Kumar, J.@mdashThis is tenant''s petition filed u/s 15(5) of the East Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below holding that the tenant-petitioner is liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. Both the courts below have found that the tenant-petitioner is in arrears of rent since 1.4.1999. It has further been held that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and Ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Ors. (2002)131 P.L.R. 370 would not be applicable as the tenant-petitioner had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. Reliance has been placed on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Ramanand Shastri v. Gian Singh,2 2003(3) CCC 62 and
2. Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that in the instant case, the protection accorded to the tenant by framing an assessment order in pursuance of the judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan''s case (supra) could not be denied merely because the relationship has been denied by the tenant-petitioner. According to the learned counsel the tenant-petitioner has been paying rent to Banarsi Dass, father of the landlord-respondent. According to the learned counsel, the tenant-petitioner has produced on record the receipts of rent paid to Banarsi Dass, father of the landlord-petitioner. He has further submitted that in any case the opportunity in pursuance of the judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan''s case (supra) should have been afforded to the tenant-petitioner after the findings are recorded by the Rent Controller that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and an assessment order should have been framed calling upon the tenant-petitioner to make payment of rent, failing which he was to face ejectment. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed on reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in Sheela and Ors. v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prapagh (2002)131 P.L.R. 66 and Rakesh Wadhawans'' case (supra).
3. Having heard the learned counsel at a considerable length, I am of the considered view that this petition is devoid of any merit because it has been proved on record that the tenant-petitioner had executed Rent Note Exhibit A-l vide which the tenant petitioner had taken on rent the demised premises from the landlord-respondent at the rate of Rs.750/- per month on 18.4.1995. The rent note is duly signed by him. In support of the rent note, AW-1 Kapil Chopra, who had scribed the rent note, was produced. He had duly proved the execution of the rent note by the landlord in favour of the tenant-petitioner. Same stand has been taken by the landlord-respondent when he himself appeared as his own witness. Even the execution of the rent note by the tenant-petitioner has not been denied. The tenant-petitioner has admitted to have signed the rent note in his cross-examination. On the basis of the aforementioned evidence, it has been found that the rent note was duly executed between the parties. The relationship of landlord and tenant is substantiated from the accounts statement from their bank accounts. Surjit Singh, Clerk, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sirhind AW-3 has proved the Account Opening Form of the tenant-petitioner and copy of the statement of account has been proved as Exhibit A-4 which shows that several cheques had been issued in favour of landlord-respondent for an amount of Rs.750/- which have been debited from the account of the tenant-petitioner and those cheques were credited to the account of the landlord-respondent. Therefore, it is evident that the tenant-petitioner had been paying rent regularly to the landlord-respondent. He voluntarily stopped paying rent to the landlord-respondent w.e.f. 1.4.1999.
4. It is further clear that the plea of the tenant-petitioner that he, in fact, is tenant of the father of the landlord-respondent, was considered to be without any substance on account of the rent note dated 18.4.1995. The non-payment of the rent with effect from 1.4.1999 has been established and three receipts issued by Banarsi Dass accepting the rent dated 7.5.1999, 3.6.1999 and 5.7.1999 were not accepted as it has been found that tenant-petitioner has been continuously paying rent since 1995 to the landlord respondent and there was no question of making payment of rent to Banarsi Dass, the father of the landlord-respondent.
5. The plea with regard to affording of an opportunity to deposit the arrears of rent has been rejected by both the Courts below by placing reliance on two judgments of this Court in Ramanand Shastri''s case and Hukma Devi''s case (supra). The view of the learned Appellate Court on the basis of the aforementioned two judgments reads as under: -
"The Hon''ble High Court in the said judgment while referring to the observations in Rakesh Wadhawan''s case held that the said observations would not apply where the status of a party has not been accepted as a landlord by the other party who denies his status to be his tenant, and consequently dismissed the revision petition filed by the tenant. From the perusal of aforesaid two judgments of our Hon''ble High Court. I find that an exception has virtually been carved out in Rakesh Wadhawan ''s case to the effect that where a party disputes his relationship with the other party being that of a tenant and landlord, then it does not lie in his month to say that he had not been given an opportunity to tender rent, Consequently, in view of the said judgments i.e. 2003 CCC 62 Ramanand Shastri v. Gian Singh v. Bhagwan Dass, 5 the appellant cannot any advantage from Rakesh Wadhawan''s case. As such this Court having upheld the findings of the learned Rent Controller on issue No.l and 2 regarding relationship of the parties and regarding tenant being in arrears of rent, the inevitable consequence is that the tenant has rendered himself liable for ejectment. Consequently, the findings of the learned Rent Controller on issue No.4 are perfectly justified and do not call for any interference and the same are hereby affirmed in favour of the applicant and against the tenant,"
6. The arguments of the learned counsel that the assessment order should have been framed by the Rent Controller as it is a duty enjoined upon him u/s 13(2) of the Act cannot be accepted because a tenant cannot firstly deny the relationship and then force the landlord to lead evidence establishing the relationship. It would be unfair thereafter to expect the Rent Controller to frame an assessment order giving provisional rate of rent and then ask for payment of arrears of rent in accordance with assessment order. A tenant who denies the relationship despite the existence of a rent note, does so at his own peril. In the case of
".... It appears that, after the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit filed by the tenant for specific performance of the agreement, the tenant has now come forward with a plea that since he under mistaken belief did not deposit arrears and month to month rent and therefore, default may be condoned. As noticed earlier, this plea of non-depositing of arrears of rent on account of sufficient cause was not a case set up by the tenant before the Rent Controller, the appellate authority and the High Court. The tenant''s consistent stand was that he was not required under law to deposit any arrears of rent and month to month rent as he himself was the landlord of the premises. This plea of the tenant now advanced is an afterthought and is not bona fide and, therefore, we do not find it to constitute "sufficient cause" as to condone the non-deposit of arrears and also month to month rent which was required to be deposited by the tenant. We, therefore do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants."
7. Once the tenant has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, then there would be hardly any justification for the Rent Controller to frame an assessment order in pursuance of the provisions of proviso of Section 13(2)(1) of the Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan (supra). After the evidence has been led by the landlord showing the relationship of landlord-tenant, then there would be no justification to permit the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent in accordance with the interim assessment order of rent. Such an approach would create imbalance of equities and would hardly be justified. Therefore, I have no hesitation in rejecting the argument raised by the learned counsel and reiterate my view taken in the cases of Ramanand Shastri (supra) and Hukama Devi (supra).
8. The other argument that it is not a simple case of denial of relationship but the denied was based on a bona fide belief that the rent was payable to the father of the landlord-respondent can also not be accepted because the tenant-petitioner has been consistently making payment of rent to the landlord-respondent. The tenant-petitioner could not take any advantage of litigation initiated by Vijay Kumar against his father Banarsi Dass merely on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge had vacated the status quo order on 27.1.1999 which was granted by the Civil Judge on 4.6.1996. That order did not in any manner indicated that the tenant-petitioner has changed his relationship with the landlord-respondent. There is no direction with regard to assignment of the tenant by substituting his landlord nor any such effort was made by the tenant-petitioner by filing a suit. It is also pertinent to mention that the application filed by Banarsi Dass under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for impleadment as a party in the ejectment petition was also dismissed on 12.5.2001. Even otherwise, the adjudication between the landlord-respondent and his father based on title dispute has got nothing to do with the relationship of the tenant and landlord. Therefore, there is no justification for the tenant-petitioner to commit the default in making payment of rent. The argument is without any merit and merits rejection.
For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed in limine.
