Atma Ram vs Banarsi Lal and Another

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by Atma Ram, hereinafter described as "the petitioner" directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Panipat, dated 15.5.1981 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Karnal, dated 17.9.1981. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition for eviction. The said order was upheld by the learned Appellate Authority.

The relevant facts are that an eviction petition was filed by the petitioner against the respondents asserting that the arrears of rent have not been paid from 1.4.1976 to 31.5.1977 and further that respondent No. 1 had sublet the property in question to respondent No. 2 without the consent in writing. Respondent No. 1 submitted his written statement and admitted only that he was the tenant upto 31.3.1976. He denied that the property had been sublet to any person or that the ground of eviction on account of non payment of rent is available. As per respondent No. 1, it was a sharp device to get the property vacated. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 did not put in appearance. It was respondent No. 2 who contested the petition. He stated that he had been inducted as a tenant in the property. At the relevant time, Prem Sagar brother of Sewa Ram had a share in the property who had inducted respondent No. 2 as a tenant in the property in question.

Issues were framed and evident was recorded. The learned Rent Controller held that after 31.3.1976 respondent No. 1 had ceased to be the tenant in the property and, thus, on the date when the petition was filed there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent No. 1. The eviction petition accordingly was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed with the learned Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority agreed with the finding of the Rent Controller that respondent No. 1 had ceased to be a tenant in the suit premises after 31.3.1976. Hence, the present revision petition.

On behalf of the respondent, it was urged that there are concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, therefore, this Court will not ordinarily interfere in the said finding. The said contention, in fact, is meritorious. The finding had been arrived at by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on appreciation of evidence and facts. There is no ground to take a different view. In any case, when findings of fact had been arrived at and they are not absurd, even Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 will not permit interference by this Court. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order impugned.

In this regard even evidence when perused leads one to reach the same conclusion. Before filing the eviction petition, the petitioner had served a notice and respondent No. 1 at that time also informed him in the reply that he had ceased to be the tenant w.e.f. 31.3.1976. In addition to that, petitioner had relied upon certain alleged counter foils to contend that respondent No. 1 continued to be a tenant therein. Exhibit A-7 was one such receipt relied upon by the petitioner to contend that respondent No. 1 had continued to be a tenant after March, 1976. But it has been found as of fact by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the writing ''that seven months rent is due" i.e. after 31.3.1976 had been written by the petitioner subsequently. It was, therefore, rightly concluded in the absence of any material evidence that respondent No. 1 had ceased to be a tenant after 31.3.1976.

For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is accordingly dismissed.