Ashok Kumar and other vs Gurcharan Singh and others

Ujagar Singh, J.—Puran Singh the deceased landlord and his wife Smt. Kulwant Kaur filed a petition u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (in brief called ''Rent Act'') for ejectment against Ram Nath, Banarsi Dass, Bansi Lal and Parshotam Lal, on the allegations that (i) Puran Singh and Parkashwati alias Bibi were the owners of the disputed premises and they had let out the same to Ram Nath and Banarsi Dass at a monthly rent of Rs. 70/- vide rent note dated 22.1.1966; (ii) Subletting by original tenants in favour of subtenants, and (iii) unsafe condition of the demised permises which had become unfit for human habitation. Parkashwati bequeathed her share in the property in favour of her sister said Smt. Kulwant Kaur. Puran Singh died during ejectment proceedings and his legal representatives Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were brought on record as Petitioners and Smt. Kulwant Kaur his widow was already a Petitioner. It may be noted that present Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 along with present Respondents Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 were brought on record as the legal respresentatives of Puran Singh on the basis of a will of his share in their favour. Banarsi Dass a co-tenant of Ram Nath also died and his legal respresentatives now Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were brought on record.

The eviction was sought on the grounds of non-payment of rent from 7.12.1980 at the said rate, sub-letting of the premises by original tenants Ram Nath and Banarsi Dass in favour of Bansi Lal and Parshotam Lal (Parshotam Lal is son of Bansi) Bansi Lal also died and present Petitioners Nos. 4 to 13 and presetit Respondents No. 9 and 10 were also brought as his legal representatives on the record. Parshotam Lal also died later on and present Petitioners No. 14 to 18 were brought on record as his legal representatives. Ram Nath the other original co tenant has not challenged the ejectment order as a Petitioner in this revision. After framing the issues parties led their evidence. The Rent Controller relying upon the evidence led from the side of landlord as also the admissions made by witness produced on behalf of tenants and sub-tenants came to a finding that original tenants i.e. Ram Nath and Banarsi Dasa had sublet the premises in dispute to sub-tenants Bansi Lal and Parshotam Lal. While giving this finding the Rent Controller also took into consideration voters'' list Exhibit AW6/2 showing the sub tenants to be residing in the dispute along with their family members Ration card No. 007008 of Bansi Lal and ration card No. 007003 of Parshotam Lal showing the residence of these two sub tenants in the property in dispute were also taken into consideration Admission of Shiv Lal RW1 to the effect that Ram Nath the original tenant had settled at Ludhiana as corroborated by Ashok Kumar RW3 has been believed by the trial Court. Ashok Kumar RW3 is the son of original tenant Banarsi Dass and this witness also admitted that he was running Tailoring business and that he and other members of his family are residing in Kucha Kakezhian and they are holding ration card on that address. Bansi Lal RW5 admitted that Banarsi Dass the original tenant died at Kucha Kakezhian where he had been residing at the time of his death and that he had shifted to Kucha Kakezhian due to shortage of accommodation in the property in dispute and there he had not taken a house on rent. The statement of Shiv Lal RW1 stating that all the four i.e. the original tenants and the sub-tenants were running dry cleaning business in the property in dispute, on the basis of a partnership deed Exhibit R.1, Was not given any weight because of inconsistent version given by Bansi Lal himself as a RW admitting that partnership deed related to business in Hail Bazar and a licence for that business had been issued in his name by the Municipal Corporation. Another fact coming in the statement of Shiv Lal RW1 to the effect that all the said Respondents ware holding licence for dry cleaning in the name of Bansi Lal was disbelieved on the ground that the Respondents are said to be running dry cleaning business in the name of ''Fancy Dry Cleaner.'' The plea in the written-statement to the effect that Parshotam Lal had nothing to do with the property in disoute and was not known to them stood belied by the statement of Bhola Nath RW-4 who said that Bansi Lal was his uncle and Parshotam Lal Was the son of his father''s brother. The reason for concealing this fact in the written-statement male the case of the Respondents doubtful and weighed with the Rent Controller as against all the four original Respondents. With this evidence on record, the finding of the Rent Controller in favour of sub-letting was correctly given. This finding challenged before the appellate Authority was affirmed after going through the above evidence. The appellate authority referred to the case Rajbir Kaur and Another Vs. S. Chokesiri and Co., laying down that exclusive possession of a sub-tenant of a part of the demised premises and the explanation of the transaction offered by the tenant having been found by the Court below to be unsatisfactory and unacceptable for the Court to draw an inference having regard lo the ordinary course of human conduct that the transaction must have been entered into for monetary consideration.

Another ground for ejectment was that the two rooms of the main building of which demised premises is also a part had fallen down and, therefore, the whole building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, relying upon a case of Hakim Sunder Lal v. Ram Sarup 1983 (1) R.C.R. 544. This ruling has been over-ruled by a latest pronouncement of Supreme Court wherein condition of only premises in dispute has to be looked into and not the condition of the other parts of the main building and, therefore, this ground could not be wholly decided in favour of the landlords The third objection of the tenants and subtenants on the score that Smt. Kulwant Kaur as legatee of the original co-owner land lady) Parkashwati could not seek ejectment, was rejected on the ground that the tenant cannot question the validity of the will (it is also described as a gift) executed by Parkashwati.

Objections covered by issues Nos. 4 and 4-A were also decided in favour of the landlords. All these findings were upheld by the appellate authority.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has not been able to point out any infirmity, except that noted above, in the orders of two authorities below. I have also gone through the orders of the authorities below in detail and do not find any infirmity in the findings of both the authorities. This civil Revision is therefore, dismissed in limine. The Petitioners are, however, given time up to 31-8-89 to hand-over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute. This time for handing over the possession is subject to the condition that the arrears of rent up todate are paid on or before 2-7-1989 and payment of monthly rent in advance on or before 15-6-1989, 15-7-1989 and 15-8-89 respectively and failure on their part either in payment of arrears of rent or in payment of advance monthly rent will entitle the landlords to execute the order of ejectment.