Rent Controller is required to decide if tenant can be evicted while considering Rent Petition; Substantive question with regard to title between brothers cannot be decided in such petitions: P&H HC

Read Order: Raj Kumar and Another v. Ramesh Kumar and Another

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, March 14, 2022: While dealing with a rent petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in a rent petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the Rent Controller is required to decide as to whether the tenant is liable to be evicted on the grounds specified in the eviction petition. 

The Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal also added, “The substantive question with regard to the title between the brothers cannot be decided in a rent petition. Furthermore, a petition on behalf of a co-sharer, with the consent of other co-sharers, is maintainable.”

By this order, four Civil Revision petitions were disposed of. In this case, a petition filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act seeking eviction of the tenant was pending before the Rent Controller. The petitioners, claiming to be owners, filed an application for being impleaded as the party respondents. The Rent Controller dismissed the said applications.

The petitioners’ counsel while drawing the attention of the Court to the alleged affidavit of Ramesh Kumar, their brother (the petitioner in the eviction petition) submitted that as per the family settlement, Sh. Ramesh Kumar handed over his share in the property to the petitioners herein. He, hence, submitted that the petitioners were the necessary party. In the alternative, the counsel contended that the petitioners were the undisputed co-owners of the property, therefore, they were required to be impleaded as a party. He further claimed that the eviction petition was filed by their brother Ramesh Kumar, without their consent.

The Court observed at the outset that it became evident from the affidavit allegedly executed by Ramesh Kumar that he undertook to execute and sign all the documents, as might be required for the change of ownership. Further, the Court noted that the petitioners’ counsel did not dispute the fact that Sh. Ramesh Kumar did not execute the documents.

On the ingredients on Section 13 of the 1949 Act, the Court opined that in the rent petition filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act, the Rent Controller was required to decide as to whether the tenant was liable to be evicted on the grounds specified in the eviction petition. 

Regarding decision on the title, the Court opined, “The substantive question with regard to the title between the brothers cannot be decided in a rent petition.”

Furthermore, the Court observed that a petition on behalf of a co-sharer, with the consent of other co-sharers, is maintainable. 

Also, the Court adjudged that if the petitioners have an objection to the maintainability of the petition, they shall be at liberty to appear in evidence on behalf of the tenant and bring this fact to the notice of the Court. However, for this reason only, the petitioners were not required to be impleaded as a party, added Justice Kshetarpal. 

Hence, finding no ground for interference, the petition was dismissed.