Rent plea for evicting tenant from property dismissed
Chandigarh, April 7
While observing that the petitioner trust had failed to establish on record that it had ownership rights over the premises or that it had been authorised to receive rent from the respondent, a local court dismissed a rent petition filed for evicting a tenant from the property.
The court said the petitioner had failed to establish the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. In such circumstance, the present petition was held to be not maintainable. Guga Madi Welfare Trust, Badher village, Sector 41, Chandigarh, had filed a rent petition through president of the trust Jughar Singh and secretary of the trust Kirpal Singh against Kaka Singh under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The petitioners had claimed that the Guga Madi Welfare Trust was a registered body under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and was managing the affairs and property of Guga Madi Mandir in Sector 41, Chandigarh . As per the petitioners, the respondent was working as a sewadar at the Guga Madi and was residing in a two-room property on the premises of the temple.
They claimed that they had inducted the respondent as a tenant at Rs 3,000 per month, but he paid the rent only for a few months till May 2013 and did not pay the rent thereafter. He was then asked by members of the trust to either pay the rent or vacate the rooms. But he neither vacated the rooms, nor paid the rent. Therefore, the petitioners said, the respondent was liable to be evicted from the premises.
On the other hand NK Nanda, respondent’s counsel, denied all the charges and said there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and the respondent and as such the petition deserved to be dismissed. Nanda argued that the trust was fabricated only with the sole motive of grabbing the premises and to take possession of Guga Madi Mandir from the respondent.
Nanda argued that the respondent was in possession of the mandir as his forefathers looked after it. Since they died, the respondent has been looking after the temple, worshiping there and living next to it with his family.
After hearing the arguments, rent controller Mayank Marwaha said as per the petitioner trust, it was registered for the purpose of management of the affairs and property of the Guga Madi Mandir. However, there was no document on record which established that the property was ever transferred in the name of the trust. There is no document on record which establishes that the petitioner trust was ever authorised to manage the affairs and property of the Guga Madi Mandir. While the trust was registered on September 28, 2001, the temple had been in existence years before it.
