Amarjit Singh and Another vs Vinod Kumar Kohli and Another

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This revision petition is directed against orders of the Courts below by which petition filed by the landlord u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ''the Act'') seeking eviction of the tenants from property No. 141, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana was allowed on the ground of subletting and ceased to occupy.

In brief, the demised premises was let out by the landlord to Amarjit Singh (Petitioner No. 1), who had further let it out to Avtar Singh (Petitioner No. 2), who had let it out to Gurmit Singh (Respondent No. 2) without the permission of the landlord. In order to challenge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, it was argued before this Court on 29.1.2004 that "learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the appellate authority has misread the evidence when it records that the Petitioner No. 1 is whole time employee of Chawla Sales Agency. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the statement of A.W. 2 Joginder Singh, the proprietor of Chawla Sales Agency, who has deposed that the services of Petitioner No. 1 are utilized for banking services from 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and is thus, only part time employee. The sub-letting is alleged by son in favour of father. Admitted. Stay ejectment provided Petitioner deposits arrears of rent within four weeks and continues to deposit monthly rent by 10th of each month.

Since, the aforesaid stay was granted ex parte, the landlord filed an application No. 15950-CII-2004 for vacation of ex parte stay on the ground of mis-statement of fact before the Court at the time of admission. Along with the affidavit he also attached the complete statement of Joginder Singh (A.W. 2). In that application, notice was issued to which a reply was filed. On 8.2.2005, following order was passed by this Court:

This is an application for vacation of the ex parte stay order granted by this Court on 29.1.2004. Upon notice, the Petitioners have filed reply.

After hearing counsel for the parties, it is considered appropriate that the main revision petition is listed for final hearing as anything said while disposing of this application is likely to effect the merits of the controversy involved in this revision. In the circumstances, the revision petition is ordered to be listed for final hearing within three months.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has vehemently argued that the finding recorded by learned Appellate Court in para No. 13 of the impugned judgment wherein he has observed that "in his cross-examination he admitted that he does not know the name of any customers dealt by him in the shop" to hold that the tenant Amarjit Singh was not in actual physical possession of the premises is a misreading of the evidence resulting into eviction of the Petitioners from the premises.

On the contrary, learned Counsel for the Respondents has pressed his application CM No. 15950-CII-2004, which was ordered to be heard along with the main case and has submitted that in fact the statement of A.W. 2 Joginder Singh has been totally misquoted by the Petitioners before this Court at the time of admission of the revision petition. He pointed out from the statement where A.W. 2 Joginder Singh had stated that "I know Amarjit Singh s/o. Avtar Singh Respondent No. 1. He is our employee for the past 6-7 years. He comes to our premises at 10 AM and goes back at 7 PM. He is a whole time employee. We are maintaining the record of our employees. The presence of all the employees is marked daily. I have brought the record where it is shown that Amarjit Singh Respondent No. 1 has been attending the firm daily on working days for past several years. I have brought the record for the year 1994-95 up till 1997-98. The record pertaining to Amarjit Singh Respondent. No. 1 shows that he has been signing daily on the presence sheet. I identify his signatures as he has been signing in my presence and I am conversant with his signatures. Mostly the Respondent is looking after the bank affairs of our firm. We have four employees with our firm. The Respondent No. 1 is drawing monthly salary from us.

He also deposed that "I have no knowledge if Amarjit Singh having his any shop. Amarjit Singh works with us from 10 AM to 7 PM". Then he stated that "It is also incorrect to suggest that he is working only during banking hours i.e. 10 AM to 2 PM.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents has also cited decision in the case of Kaushalya Devi of Kurukshetra v. Devi Dayal and Anr. 1989 HRR 123, Ravi Parkash v. Dewan Chand 1999 (1) RCR 148, Mohri Ram (died) L.Rs. Ramji Dass and Ors. v. Shivshankar Lal (Died) L.Rs. Smt. Kamla Rani and Ors. 2006 (2) RCR 281 and Lal Singh v. Ashok Kumar 1999 (2) RCR 453 that even if the father and son are joint in mess but parting of possession is proved, the subletting is proved because in normal circumstances, consideration cannot be proved as direct evidence is not possible.

After hearing both the learned Counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case where both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact on the issue of sub-letting and ceased to occupy against Amarjit Singh (tenant), who is proved to be a whole time employee of M/s Chawla Sales Agency, present revision petition is found to be without any merit and hence the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.