Amrit Singh Bedi and Others vs Rajeshwari Rani and Another

N.K. Sud, J.—This Civil Revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority. Patiala dated 27.10.1983 upholding the order of the Rent Controller. Patiala, directing the eviction of the petitioners from the tenanted property. The respondents-landlords had filed an application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for the eviction of the petitioner-tenants on the ground of non payment of rent as also on the ground of subletting. The petitioner No. 2, Sardool Singh (who was respondent No. 2 before the Rent Controller) tendered the rent in the Court on the first date of hearing. The charge of subletting was also denied by the petitioners. The trial Court upheld the claim of the respondents- appellants on both the counts and ordered the ejectment of the respondents (petitioner herein) vide his order dated 20.10.1981. The case of the respondents-landlords was that they entered into a tenancy agreement with petitioner No. 1 on 1.6.1975, who had illegally sublet the tenanted property to the petitioner No. 2 The defence set up by the respondents was that they were in occupation of the property as legal heirs of their father Sant Singh, who was a tenant in this property for a long time until his death in the year 1966. Since both the petitioners were sons of Sant Singh, they claimed to be in possession of the tenanted property as his legal heirs. An alternate case was also set up that the respondent No. 2 was occupying the tenanted property on behalf of partnership firm style as Amrit Singh, Paramjit Singh of Patiala in which the petitioner No. 1 as well as the minor sons of the petitioner No. 2 were also partners The petitioner No. 2 was, therefore, said to be in occupation of the rented premises as father of his minor sons. Both the defences have been rejected by the authorities below. It has been found that the petitioner No. 1 had entered into a fresh tenancy agreement after the death of his father on 1.6.1975 which was Exhibit R-1. This agreement had been entered into with the consent of all the other legal heirs. Thus a fresh tenancy had been created in Favour of the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 could not claim any right in the tenanted property as a legal heir of his late father, who was a tenant up to his death in 1966. It has been further found that the sons of the petilioner No. 2 were not partners as per the alleged partnership deed. They were not partners, but had only been admitted to the benefits of the partnership being minors. Thus there was no question of the petitioner No. 2 occupying the premises on behalf of his minor sons as partners. In fact, the courts below had expressed serious doubts even about the existence of the partnership business. Thus both the courts below have recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner No. 1 had sublet the tenanted property to petitioner No. 2. The tender of rent by petitioner No. 2 in the Court was also, therefore, held to be invalid.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the orders of the Rent Controller as welt as the appellate authority, I find no ground to take a view different from what has been taken by the courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to point out any factual or legal discrepancy in the findings recorded by the lower authorities. I, therefore, see no ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of the courts below. Accordingly, the civil revision is dismissed. No costs.