RESERVED
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43796 of 2017 Petitioner :- Amarjeet Singh Gandhi And Another Respondent :- Gurmeet Chawla Alias Sunny Counsel for Petitioner :- Harsh Vardhan Gupta,Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Manoj Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 29.8.2017 rejecting his application under Section 34(1) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1972). A rent suit was filed by the respondent being Rent Case no.
58 of 2012 (Gurmeet Chawla Vs Amarjeet Singh Gandhi and another) in which the petitioner/defendant submitted an application no. 107 under Section 34(1)(a) of the Act, 1972.
The case of the petitioner briefly stated is that the property in dispute being House no. 111-A/131, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, originally belonged to one Sardar Harminder Singh, who is stated to have acquired the said property through a lease deed granted in his favour in 1952. It is stated that the said property was, thereafter allotted to the petitioner by an order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 29.5.1989 and thereafter, he started paying rent to the landlord through his power of attorney holder Shri Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Shri Peshi Ram Jain r/o 111-A/130, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur. Sardar Harminder Singh died in the year 1991 and after his death Peshi Ram Jain showed the will to the petitioner in which it is stated that property in dispute had been willed by Sardar Harminder Singh in favour of Sri Peshi Ram Jain and that Peshi Ram Jain was, therefore, the owner and landlord of the said property. Therefore, the petitioners started paying rent to Peshi Ram Jain and thereafter to his son Ashok Kumar Jain. It is also stated that the respondents with mala fide intention after a lapse of about 21 years filed the Rent Case no. 58 of 2012 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, 1972 on the basis of an alleged forged will of Sardar Harminder Singh claiming that under the said will dated 5.4.1991 Sardar Harminder Singh had bequeathed the property in dispute to one Puran Singh Chawla and that the said Puran Singh Chawla thereafter, executed a registered will dated 11/15.02.2005 in their favour. In the will of 5.4.1991, Guriqbal Singh Batra and Shri Satnaam Singh, residents of Mohali were shown as marginal witnesses. It is also stated that the respondents herein then filed two affidavits one of Guriqbal Singh Batra and the other of Shri Satnaam Singh which bore the address of Maryland, USA with a seal of one Sri Loveleen Singh, Public Notary, Maryland. The defendant petitioner, therefore, filed an application under Section 34(1)(a) of the Act, 1972 for summoning the alleged marginal witnesses, Guriqbal Singh Batra and Sri Satnaam Singh and this application has been rejected by the order impugned in the present writ petition.
I have heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey for the opposite party and perused the record.
The claim of the petitioner before the prescribed authority was that the original lessee and landlord of the property in question was one Sardar Harminder Singh who had executed a power of attorney in favour of Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Peshi Ram Jain r/o 111-A/130, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur. Sardar Harminder Singh died in the year 1991 and thereafter it is stated that Peshi Ram Jain produced a will which showed that Sardar Harminder Singh had bequeathed the property to him and that he was the owner and landlord of the property and, therefore, the petitioners started paying rent to Shri Peshi Ram Jain and his son Ashok Kumar Jain. The allegation of the petitioners is that the will dated 5.4.1991 showing the property in dispute to have been bequeathed to Shri Puran Singh Chawla by Sardar Harminder Singh was a forged and fabricated and an unregistered will. This will showed Guriqbal Singh Batra and Satnaam Singh as marginal witnesses, therefore, an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 34(1)(a) of the Act, 1972 for summoning Guriqbal Singh Batra and Satnaam Singh to prove the will. Section 34(1) of the Act, 1972 reads as under:-
“34. Powers of various authorities and procedure to be followed by them.-(1) The District Magistrate, the Prescribed Authority or any Appellate or Revision Authority shall for the purposes of holding any inquiry or hearing any appeal or revision under this Act have the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908), when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters namely,-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath.”
The trial court has, however, recorded a finding that the petitioner has not filed the will alleged to have been executed by Sardar Harminder Singh in favour of Shri Peshi Ram Jain nor has he filed any government document to show that mutation of names have been carried out in the Municipal Records of the property in question in the name of Peshi Ram Jain. A finding has also been recorded that though the counsel for the petitioners before the prescribed authority claimed that petitioners still regarded Peshi Ram Jain and Ashok Kumar Jain as the landlords and were paying rent to him but they have not filed even a single rent receipt or money order to show that they were paying rent to Peshi Ram Jain or Ashok Kumar Jain.
The prescribed authority on the other hand, has recorded a clear finding that the applicant i.e. respondent herein has filed the original copy of the will dated 5.4.1991 and has also filed the original affidavits of Manjeet Singh, Harjeet Singh and Charanjeet Singh, sons of Sardar Harminder Singh and the original affidavit of Smt. Gurdeep Kaur and Parvendra Kaur, daughters of Sardar Harminder Singh and in these affidavits it is admitted that Sardar Harminder Singh had executed a will dated 5.4.1991. They have also admitted that the will of 5.4.1991 bore the signature of marginal witnesses Guriqbal Singh Batra and Satnaam Singh to the effect that the will in respect of the property in dispute was executed in favour of Shir Puran Singh, The prescribed authority has further held that the petitioners have alleged that the will dated 5.4.1991 stated to have been executed in favour of Sri Puran Singh was fabricated through the collusive action of the natural heirs of Sardar Harminder Singh which has been disbelieved by the prescribed authority holding that they being the natural heirs, it was always open for them to have executed a sale deed or a lease deed in favour of Puran Singh Chawla and it was not necessary for them to come forward and file affidavits stating that the property in dispute had been willed by their father in favour of Sri Puran Singh.
The analysis of the prescribed authority, in my opinion, has sound reason and substance. First of all, a clear finding of fact has been recorded that the petitioner did not file the alleged will of the year 1991 stated to have been executed by Sardar Harminder Singh in favour of Peshi Ram Jain. Secondly, even when his own admitted case is that Peshi Ram Jain was the landlord and that he was paying rent to him he had failed to file any rent receipt or money order receipt to show payment of rent made by him to Peshi Ram Jain or his son Ashok Kumar Jain. On the contrary, Manjeet Singh, Harjeet Singh, Charanjeet Singh, Smt. Gurdeep Kaur and Parvinder Kaur, children of Sardar Harminder Singh had filed their own affidavits admitting that a will had been executed by their father in favour of Sri Puran Singh Chawla and that Satnaam Singh and Guriqbal Singh Batra were marginal witnesses to the said will. The reasoning of the prescribed authority appears to be absolutely sound when he holds that it was always open for the natural heirs of Sardar Harminder Singh to have sold the property in question to Sri Puran Singh or executed a sale deed or lease deed in favour of Sri Puran Singh and it was not necessary for them to come forward to state on oath through affidavits that the property in dispute had been willed by their father late Sardar Harminder Singh in favour of Sri Puran Singh.
For reasons aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the prescribed authority dated 29.8.2017 rejecting the petitioners application no. 107 under Section 34(1)(a) of the Act, 1972.
The observations made herein above shall not prejudice the rights of the parties while finally determining the claims of the parties or examining the validity of any document in the pending rent case by the Prescribed Authority and the same shall be decided on its own merit.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27th April, 2018 Kirti