JUDGMENT
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. The plaintiff- appellant is the owner of the premises in question i.e. S.C.O. No.49-51, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. The premises were rented out to the respondent-Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation at a monthly rent of Rs.5.300/-. As the said premises had been resumed by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, therefore, the respondent did not pay the rent to the appellant from 1.9.1980 to 30.4.1982.The plaintiff appellant filed suit for recovery of Rs. 1,06,000/- for the aforesaid period on the ground of non-payment of the rent by the respondent.
2. The respondent controverted the pleas of the landlord and averred that since the allotment of the site in question was cancelled and the site was resumed, therefore, he was no longer the owner of the said premises, and hence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any rent. It was further averred by the respondent that they had deposited Rs.68,900/- with the Estate Officer for the defaults committed by the appellant.
3. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court dismissed the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 2.2.1984. Appeal was filed against the
said judgment before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who vide his judgment dated 4.3.1991 allowed the claim of the appellantto the extent of Rs.37,100/- and for the rest of the amount, it was dismissed. It was held that as the respondent had paid to the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration a sum of Rs.68,900/-, therefore, that amount was to be deducted from the total amount of recovery, which was Rs.1,06,000/-. It is against the aforesaid judgment that the present appeal has been filed.
4. Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant continued to remain as owner of the premises and was, thus, entitled to recover the rent from the respondent. If the respondent has paid any amount to the Estate Officer, then he can claim its refund by filing a suit for recovery against the Chandigarh Administration, arid as far as the appellant is concerned, he being the landlord is entitled to receive the rent. It has further been contended by him that although the site in question had been resumed and the appeal was pending, yet, since the proceedings were not finally decided between the parties, he was entitled to recover the rent.
5. In support of this contention he has relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma and Ors. v. Smt Ved Parbha and Ors., 1981(2) R.L.R. 30 as also B.R.Gupta v. Vikas Kumar, (1997-1)115 P.L.R. 769.
6. Mr. G.G. Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of Mr. Gulshan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent and has reiterated the arguments raised before the Course below. .
7. 1 have gone through the entire case file of this case and the judgments of the Courts below.
8. The appellant is the owner of the demised premises and was, thus, obviously entitled to recover the rent from the respondent-Corporation, In case there was any default on his part and he was to pay certain amount to any other person, then he alone was responsible to pay the same and the Corporation could not pay the amount on his behalf and thereafter claim deduction. As long as the appellant was not dispossessed from the site or the demised premises were not demolished, the appellant is fully entitled to receive the rent. It is pertinent to note here that ultimately, the order of resumption of the site in dispute was set aside by the High Court in the writ petition filed by the appellant. Thus, it is clear that as long as the order of resumption was not final, the landlord was fully entitled to receive the rent from the tenant.
9. Even the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh has recognised the claim of the appellant to recover the rent from the Corporation, however, while granting the relief, the amount deposited by the Corporation to the Estate Officer has been deducted. This obviously could not have been done after the appellate Court had held that the landlord was entitled to receive the entire rent from the respondent. In B.R.Gupta’s case (supra) it has been held that:
“No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had title to such possession at the time such licence was given. From a reading of this provision, it is clear that during the continuance of tenancy, tenant or licensee is precluded from saying that his landlord or licenser had no title at the commencement of the tenancy. It means that the person taking the property on rent from one of several co-owners would be precluded from disputing his landlord’s exclusive title to receive rent or sue for an ejectment unless he surrenders possession to a person from whom he has taken the property on rent.”
10. In the present case, the promises in dispute were taken on rent by the respondent-Corporation and they were duty bound to pay the rent to the landlord -appellant.
On their failure to do so, the appellant is obviously entitled to a decree for the recovery of the unpaid amount.
11. In view of the above, I set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh dated 2.2.1984 and the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh dated 4.3.1991 and allow the appeal with proportionate cost for the recovery of Rs. 1,06,000/-.
12. Consequently, a decree is granted in favour of the appellant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- minus the amount already paid i.e. Rs. 37,1000/-. Thus, the respondent-Punjab State Ware-Housing Corporation shall pay to the, appellant a sum of Rs. 68,900/-.