High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/1187/2023dismissed

Ramu @ Ramesh Kumar v. Kailash Kumari

2023-08-24Mr. Justice Vikram Aggarwal7 pages

# !$ !

&$' ( $)

"# $"

"$"# % &' (%%

!)% %

% # '

*& +(% , - ./#+

0 1-2 3 ! ) ' % ' ' % )% % 4

%&' 2

%% & 5 &' )%

% %

% % % 6 %

# 7 (%% % 2&' % % & % 8 & ! %

&' (%% % %

&' ( 4

"# $% % %

&' 4 % % &2 :

; % %' (%%

% % & &' &%

%% % &

% ; % +5) -

% % 4 % % % < &'() 7

( &'

()& % 0*+ , "-.

' $! "# )(/ &)0)& 1 % 023 4 4 "+ # 236 , "+ #

1 % $! +! /0 &///%& $ % 0 , 7 ,

$ /!

!%$) = 6 % % )% % & %%

&' (%% %' % 4 && % %

% %%

%% & 5 2 ; % &

%&'

&' )% % ; %

%% ' < 4 % % % < &'1&%5( +8.0$0'&0$01 9 /% % 0 6 8 23 : #

5 4

/% $! +!%(' < &'() 7

( &$/$%&/(0/ %

0, 6; < + =>96 . ,

&$$ & 1 % 0234 45 "+ # 23 6 , "+ # % $! +!/0

&)1$$& /$ % 08, .-

/' $! +!%) &

/&/(0 % 089*+?, *+, * ! #

! )'0 &/)'& /0 % 0; 2 @ , 7 8

!/') &/(1&

% 0@ 6 ,

!$$$ &($&/((' % 06 # 7

/((' !

!1'% / 4

&' % % > %' #

%&')% %2

! ) ' ' % '

%&' % ' &< % 5

%% &5

4 % ' % ' )% % 4 %% %'

%% 5 )%

%% % % ₹15,15,000/-. It was also averred that the entire sale consideration had been paid over a period of time and as had been agreed between the parties, the rent was not required to be paid after the payment of 50% of the sale consideration.

It, therefore, essentially means that the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. It was admitted that the petitioner-tenant was a tenant in the tenanted premises but on account of the agreement to sell having been executed between the parties, the relationship had ceased to exist. 10.

In the considered opinion of this Court, this stand cannot sustain in law. The petitioner-tenant was a tenant in the tenanted premises. Merely because an oral agreement to sell had been executed between the parties which itself is yet to be proved since the suit is pending, it cannot be said that the relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased to exist. The stand taken by

the petitioner-tenant seems to be just a ploy to avoid payment of rent. It has been held by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in a number of cases that where an agreement to sell had allegedly been executed between the landlord and the tenant, the tenant would not be permitted to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant and the mere execution of an agreement to sell would not ipso facto mean that the relationship would come to an end. This view was taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in &)1$$& /$ % 08 , . -

/' $! +! %) wherein, the Coordinate Bench, while dealing with a revision petition filed by petitionertenant against an order of eviction held that an agreement to sell would not confer any title on a party unless the same is enforced in law against the executant of such an agreement. It was an admitted case that the matter was pending before the Civil Court and the said matter could go in favour of either party. It was held that since the tenants were in possession of the suit property as tenants, their status with regard to the said property would remain to be that of a tenant and it could not be said that there would be no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or that they were not obliged to tender the provisional rent as assessed. The aforesaid findings of the Co-ordinate Bench are reproduced hereinbelow:- "4.

The tenant-petitioners admittedly failed to tender the provisionally assessed rent on the stipulated date i.e. 15.5.2012. Consequently, the Rent Controller following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhavan & ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) RCR (Rent) 514:2002(2) PLR 370 and the DB judgment of this Court in Rajan@Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010(1) RCR (Rent) 386:2012 (2) PLR 201 ordered eviction of the petitioners from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of provisional rent, as assessed. The petitioners filed an appeal

before the Appellate Authority which was also dismissed. 5.

Challenging the aforesaid order, counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the impugned orders of eviction have been passed erroneously, ignoring the fact that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the petitioners were not liable to pay any rent, as they have become the owner of the suit property vide agreement to sell dated 27.12.2007 and a civil litigation i.e. suit for specific performance of agreement to sell is already pending between them and even vide order dated 28.3.2011, the Civil Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the petitioners over the suit property and further alienation of the suit property.

The argument raised is liable to be rejected outrightly. It is well settled that an agreement to sell will not confer any title on a party, unless the same is enforced in law against the executant of such an agreement. Admittedly, the matter is pending before the Civil Court and that may go in favour or against the petitioners. Further, it may be noticed that admittedly, the petitioners are in possession of the suit property as tenants and till date, their status with regard to the said property is of tenants and thus, it cannot be said that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the petitioners were not obliged to tender the provisional rent, as assessed."

A similar view was taken by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in , 6 4 + - 23 4 4 5 "+ #

4 + - 89 *+ 4 + - ; 4 + - @ 6 4+ - 6# 4+ - 11.

I have perused the judgments relied upon by learned counsel representing the petitioner. In the case of 0*+ , " -.

' $!"#)(/ 0 , 7 ,

%$) had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. Under the circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench held that once the relationship had been denied, the Rent Controller would not be required to draw an order of assessment of provisional rent. However, in those cases, the situation was not the same as in the present case and there was no question of there being an admitted tenancy and subsequently an agreement to sell having been arrived at. In those cases, there was a plain denial of tenancy and in fact in the case of *+ , "+ -the revision petition was filed by the petitioner-tenant was dismissed while holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant had been admitted. Same was the case in the case of , + -.

In this case, the stand of the tenant was that the landlord was no longer the landlord and the property in dispute was owned and possessed subsequently by the Waqf Board. This judgment would also, therefore, not come to the aid of the petitioner. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (#!

&$)

Prince Chawla ? @ A@ ? &% A@