inderjit Kaur and ors. Vs. Rajinder Singh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - the landlord had preferred an appeal against the order dismissing his petition and assailed the findings both as regards the maintainability of the petition as well as finding regarding the non-payment of the rent. 3. the learned senior counsel for the respondent would submit that the finding regarding the non-maintainability of the petition was clearly wrong and non-payment of the instalment to the housing board would not take away his status as the landlord and his entitlement to prosecute the petition before the rent controller. after all the petition for eviction had been dismissed both by the rent controller as well as by the appellate authority.k. kannan, j.1. the application for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent from april, 1995 to february, 1998 was resisted by the tenant on several grounds that included the maintainability of the petition. the rent controller upheld the contention of the tenant that the petition was not maintainable since the landlord had not paid the amounts due to the housing board in relation to the property. the rent controller also found that the tenant paid the rents, but the landlord had not properly issued the receipts. the landlord had preferred an appeal against the order dismissing his petition and assailed the findings both as regards the maintainability of the petition as well as finding regarding the non-payment of the rent. the appellate authority reversed the finding regarding the issue of payment of rent and upheld the contention of the landlord that the tenant had not paid the rents from april, 1995 to february 1998, as contended by him. however, as regards the maintainability of the petition itself, the appellate authority had found that the decision of the rent controller was correct and he upheld the order of the rent controller in so far as it dismissed the eviction petition.2. the tenant is in revision against the order finding that he was in arrears of rent during the period referred to by the landlord. curiously the landlord himself did not come on revision and the order of dismissal which was passed by the appellate authority in confirmation of the order of the rent controller had become final.3. the learned senior counsel for the respondent would submit that the finding regarding the non-maintainability of the petition was clearly wrong and non-payment of the instalment to the housing board would not take away his status as the landlord and his entitlement to prosecute the petition before the rent controller. he refers to a full bench ruling of this court in ajay kashyap v. smt. mohini nijhawan : (2004-2)137 p.l.r. 411 (f.b.). the full bench had ruled that a landlord was not required to be the owner of the premises itself and so long as he is the person entitled to receive the rent whether on his own account or on behalf of another person. the fact that he had committed a default in payment of instalment of housing board would not be a ground to throw out the petition as maintainable. the full bench has also ruled that an allottee has entitled to induct the tenant and the provisions of the rent act apply. i agree with the contention, which is in tune with the decision of the above full bench decision and find that the petition was maintainable. but still, i am afraid, it will not result in reversal of the finding of dismissal of petition itself, for the landlord ought to have filed his own revision petition the order of dismissal of petition by the appellate authority.4. it is not a case where a person who is interested in supporting the ultimate decision rendered by a subordinate court, could be permitted to urge that a finding that anyone issue was wrongly done. in this case, there was a dismissal of the petition for eviction. no relief was granted to the landlord except that the appellate authority found that the tenant was in arrears of rent. the tenant himself need not have treated himself as aggrieved party to prefer a revision. after all the petition for eviction had been dismissed both by the rent controller as well as by the appellate authority. the revision itself was not maintainable for no part of the order could be said to be adverse to the tenant and even a finding that he was in arrears of rent was not such as to have enabled the landlord to secure any relief in same petition. in an incompetent revision filed by the tenant, it would be inconceivable to grant a relief for a landlord relating to eviction on a finding that the petition was maintainable. if the wrong finding had stood without having been specifically challenged in revision by the landlord, this court could extend no more lip sympathy that such finding by the courts below were not in accordance with law. the tenant would have no remedy before this court in revision challenging a factual consideration that there had been a default of payment of rent. the civil revision by the tenant is, therefore, dismissed. the landlord's contention that the petition was maintainable and his prayer that the findings rendered by the rent controller and the appellate authority regarding the maintainability of the petition to be reversed cannot still be accepted for the ultimate order of the decree of dismissal passed by the rent controller and the appellate authority had become final. the landlord also, under such circumstances, cannot have any relief in the revision filed by the tenant.5. the civil revision is, accordingly, dismissed.