@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V.P. Bhatnagar, J.@mdashSmt. Satya Devi filed an application seeking eviction of respondents 1 to 3 in the court of the learned Rent Controller,
Solan on the ground of nonpayment of rent. Respondents 1 to 3 contested the said petition, inter alia, on the plea that there was no relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties. Actually, they set up a title in themselves.
2. The learned Rent Controller, Solan, vide his order made on Dec. 22, 1976, found that relationship of landlord and tenant stood established. He,
therefore, proceeded to pass an order of eviction with respect to the premises in dispute against respondents 1 to 3 but allowed them to pay the
arrears of rent within 30 days in which eventuality the eviction order was not to be operative. The learned Appellate Authority, under the Himachal
Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, however, quashed the aforesaid order of eviction vide its judgment dated Feb. 15, 1980 and directed the
parties to approach the civil court for having their respective claim of title to the premises in dispute established. Aggrieved from the aforesaid
judgment, Smt. Satya Devi has filed the present civil revision.
3. It is not in dispute that M/s. Sant Ram Des Raj were the owners of the premises in dispute and that respondents 1 to 3 were the tenants. Shri
Sant Ram was a partner of the firm - M/s. Sant Ram Des Raj but the capacity in which he was working as a partner in the said firm is a matter of
controversy between the parties. Whereas the respondents allege that Shri Sant Ram was a partner in his individual capacity, the case of Smt.
Satya Devi is that he was a partner of M/s. Sant Ram Des Raj in his capacity as a partner of M/s. Chaudhari Mal Mangat Ram of Matiana. In
other words, it was the Maitana firm which was the partner in M/s. Sant Ram Des Raj.
4. The firm of M/s Sant Ram Des Raj was dissolved on May 19, 1958 vide deed Ex.RW 4/4. The premises in dispute fell to the share of Shri Sant
Ram. He was then admittedly a partner of Matiana firm which is stated to have sold the premises in dispute by way of a book entry in 1963 to Shri
Des Raj as partner of M/s Des Raj Hans Raj of Kalka. Shri Des Raj is then stated to have sold the said premises vide registered deed Ex.PW 6/B
to Smt. Satya Devi on Dec. 24, 1969. Respondents 1 to 3, on the other hand, maintain that Shri Sant Ram became the exclusive owner of the
premises in dispute after it had fallen to his share on the dissolution of the firm of M/s. Sant Ram Des Raj in the year 1958. Shri Sant Ram is then
stated to have sold this property to respondents 1 to 3 on September 9,1970 vide Registered sale deed Ex. 1/4.
5. It was in the above background that the learned Rent Controller, Solan, was called upon to determine whether relationship of landlord and
tenant existed between the parties.
6. It is well-settled law that it is within the domain of the Rent Controller to find out if relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties
arrayed before him and further that mere denial of such relationship would not oust his jurisdiction. At the same time, his is not the proper forum for
determining the question of title which has to be decided by Civil Court. In other words, if Rent Controller is of the view that he cannot determine
the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties without deciding the question of title he can refer the parties to the civil court.
In this connection, reference may be had to the law laid down in Om Parkash Gupta v. Dr. Rattan Singh (1963) 6 P LR 543 (SC); 5 Kharaiti Ram
Bansi Lal Vs. Shmt. Radha Rani and Another, and Dev Raj v. Sodhan Devi 1974 RCR 146 (Punj & Har).
7. The perusal of the order dated Dec. 22, 1976 made by the learned Rent Controller, Solan shows that he was fully aware of the above
provisions of law. He made no efforts to determine the dispute pertaining to title raised by both the parties but restricted himself to adjudicating
upon the controversy as to whether respondents 1 to 3 could be deemed to have become tenants under Smt. Satya Devi. As stated above, M/s.
Sant Ram Des Raj were admittedly the owners and landlords with respect to the premises in dispute and the said premises had fallen to the share
of Shri Sant Ram as back as in the year 1958. Smt. Satya Devi came on the scene in December 1969. The tenants wereobviously required to
keep on paying rent for all this period, viz., 1958 to 1969. It appears that the parties did adduce evidence in the court of the learned Rent
Controller in the above matter as also on such other points which could facilitate the determination of the existence of relationship of landlord and
tenant between them. It was on the evaluation of the said evidence that the learned Rent Controller concluded about the existence of the
relationship in question between the parties. The following observations made by him in para 31 of the order dated Dec. 21, 1976 are clearly
indicative of the manner in which he dealt with controversy :
...It is open for the respondents 1 to 3 if they like to go to the Civil Court for getting the question decided that Sant Ram had valid title to sell the
property in dispute to them. I have only given my findings regarding the relationship of landlord and tenants on certain admissions of Shri Sant Ram
and on the basis of payment of rent by Angania Ram to the firm M/s. Des Raj Hans Raj of Kalka and on the basis of conduct of Shri Sant Ram
and also on the basis of transfer entry of the shop in dispute in the name of Des Raj Hans Raj as discussed earlier. There is no bar for this authority
to decide the question of relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties......
8. On the other hand, the manner in which the learned Appellate Authority approached the controversy is brought out by the following
observations made in the impugned judgment dated Feb. 15, 1980 :
...These facts clearly go to show that the title to the property in dispute involved a very important question of law and facts and the Court below
should have stayed its hands in deciding the same and should have asked the parties to have their title declared from a competent court of law.
Curiously enough, the learned Appellate Authority has nowhere discussed the evidence adduced by the parties on the point of existence of
relationship of landlord and tenant between them. He has also not arrived at any conclusion to the effect that the determination of the aforesaid
relationship is not possible on the facts of the case or that such a determination had to follow the findings of a civil court on the question of title. To
that extent, it is manifest that the learned Appellate Authority has fallen into an error in accepting the appeal, setting aside the order of eviction and
directing the parties to approach the civil court for having their title established to the premises in dispute. Such a course is nothing short of
abdication of the functions which have to be performed by the Appellate Authority under the rent control legislation.
9. In view of the above reasons, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned judgment is set aside with direction to the learned
Appellate Authority, Solan to hear the appeal de novo and decide it keeping in view the observations made above. The parties are directed to
appear in the court of the learned Appellate Authority, Solan and Sirmur districts at Solan on May 17, 1986.
