Bachan Singh @ Gurbachan Singh vs Mohan Lal and Others

R.L. Anand, J.—Bachan Singh alias Gurbachan Singh son of Phuman Singh, resident of Sabzi Mandi, Moga, claiming himself to be the landlord of the demised premises has filed the present revision and it has been directed against the judgment dated 7.3.1983 passed by the Court of the appellate authority, Faridkot, who allowed the appeal of Mohan Lal, Mohinder Pal and Balwant Rai, u/s 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called ''the Act''), and set aside the ejectment order dated 31.1.1981 passed by the Rent Controller, Moga, who allowed the ejectment petition of Bachan Singh.

The brief facts of the case are that Bachan Singh filed an ejectment petition u/s 13 of the Act, seeking ejectment of the demised premises which is a shop situated at Moga, on the allegations that he has owner of the shop as well as the land whereas respondent No. 1 Mohan Lal is a tenant under him at the monthly rental of Rs. 50/-, excluding house tax and other taxes. The petitioner alleged in para-2 of the petition that he was filing the copy of the rent note allegedly executed by Mohan Lal in his favour. This aspect of the case I will deal in the subsequent portion of this order. The pleadings of the petitioner further proceed in the manner that the respondent No. 1 Mohan Lal is liable to be ejected from the shop in question because he has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent to him at the rate of Rs. 50A per month starting from 1.9.1971 upto the date of the filing of the ejectment petition, i.e. 5/9.2.1997. The petitioner further alleged that respondent No. 1 has sub-let the premises in dispute to respondent No. 2 without his written consent and further that respondent No. 2 had sub-let the premises to respondents No. 3 and 4 i.e. Balwant Rai and Mangat Ram, though none of them had any right to do so. For this reason, respondents 2 to 4; namely Mohinder Pal, Balwant Rai and Mangat Ram, respectively, have been added as party. With the above allegations, the petitioner filed the ejectment application.

Notice of the petition was given to the respondents and a joint written statement was filed by Mohan Lal, Mohinder Pal and Balwant Rai, who denied the allegations of the petitioner by stating that respondent No. 1 Mohan Lal was a tenant under Ram Kaur, mother of the petitioner upto 1970. Later on, he left the shop and the same was taken over by respondents 2 and 3 as tenants at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. Respondent No. 1 was never a tenant under the petitioner and he had been paying the rent to Ram Kaur. These respondents categorically stated in para-3 of the written statement that respondent No. 1 had left the shop in the year 1970 and since then, respondents 2 and 3 are the tenants of the shop and these respondents 2 and 3 are in possession of the shop in their own right. Respondent No. 4 is only a worker at the shop with respondents 2 and 3.

A rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner in which he reiterated his allegations as contained in the petition by denying those of the written statement.

The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues for the disposal of the petition:-

"1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? If so, its effect? OPA

2) Whether respondents No. 2 and 3 are tenants of the demised premises? OPR

3) Whether respondents are liable to ejectment on the grounds mentioned at para No. 3 of the petition? OPA

4) Relief."

The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and fipally the Rent Controller, who dealt with issues No. 1 and 2 together , held that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the petitioner and Mohan Lal and that respondents Mohinder Pal, Balwant Rai and Mangat Ram were not the tenants ofi the premises in dispute. Issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the petitioner holding ''that respondents 2 and 3 are the sub-tenants of Mohan Lal. Resultantly, the petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to vacate the demised premises. The reasons in allowing the petition are contained in paras 6 to 16, which read as under:-

"6. Regarding these issues, during arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner Bachan Singh pointed out that the petitioner Bachan Singh is the landlord of the premises in dispute and that Mohan Lal respondent took the premises in dispute from the petitioner in the year 1943 and he executed the rent note Ex. PI in favour of the petitioner. The respondent Mohan Lal never handed over the possession back to trie petitioner and thus the relationship of landlord and tenant still exists between the petitioner and the respondent Mohan Lal. He also pointed out that the receipts Ex.Rr4 to R-15 and Ex.R-1 are fabricated documents and that Ram Kaur had no connection whatsoever with the disputed shop and so these receipts, if any, also do not establish that the respondents No. 2 and 3 are tenants of the demised premises.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the rent note Ex.A-1 is a fabricated document and Mohan Lal never took the shop in dispute from Bachan Singh. According to him, Ram Kaur was the landlord of the premises in dispute and she leased out the premises in dispute originally to Mohan Lal and thereafter to the present respondents Mohinder Pal and Balwant Rai. He also pointed out that Ram Kaur even filed an ejectment petition against the present respondents and the respondents entered into the compromise with Ram Kaur in that petition. So he stressed that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the petitioner and the respondent Mohan Lal and that the respondent No. 2 and 3 are tenants of the premises in dispute.

After considering these contentions of the learned counsel for the parties,I find that for proving that the relationship of landlord and tenants exists between the petitioner and the respondent Mohan Lal, the petitioner Bachan Singh in addition to his own statement has examined AW-1 Sarwan Singh, the attesting witness of the rent note Ex.A-1 and has tendered into evidence, the copy of the Jamabandi Ex. AX and a copy of the khasra girdawari Ex.AY. The petitioner Bachan Singh as AW3 has stated that the respondent Mohan Lal had taken on lease the premises in dispute from him about 25/30 years back AW1 Sarwan Singh the attesting witness of the rent note. Ex.A-1 fully corroborated and supported the statement of the petitioner Bachan Singh and stated that in his presence, the rent note Ex.A-1 was read over to respondent Mohan Lal and respondent Mohan Lal thumb marked the same after admitting the contents of the same to be correct. He also stated that the possession of the shop was delivered to Mohan Lal by Bachan Singh petitioner. The rent note Ex.A-1 also shows that the respondent Mohan Lal took one shop for a period of one year on rent from the present petitioner Gurbachan Singh @ Bachan Singh and one Kartar Singh. PW-1 Sarwan Singh is quite an independent witness and has got no relationship with either of the parties so from his testimony and from the testimony of the petitioner Bachan Singh, it is quite clearly established that Mohan Lal respondent took the premises in dispute from Bachan Singh petitioner in the year 1943 and executed the rent note Ex.A-1 in his favour.

Further more, the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1969/70 Ex.AX and the copy of the khasra girdawari from the year 1975/76 Ex. AX also corroborate the statement of the petitioner and show that Bachan Singh is the owner of one shop and Mohan Lal s/o Narotam Dass is a tenant under him on monthly rent of Rs. 50/-

Thus, clearly enough, from the evidence led by the petitioner, it is quite clearly established that the respondent Mohan Lal had taken the shop in dispute on lease from the petitioner.

Now there is nothing on the record of the case to show that the respondent Mohan Lal ever handed over the possession of the premises in dispute back to the petitioner Bachan Singh. The respondent Mohan Lal in his statement has stated that he handed over the possession of the premises in dispute to one Ram Kaur in the year 1969/70. However, in cross-examination he stated that the possession was delivered back to Ram Kaur in the presence of Vidya Rattan and Naubat Rai. Now neither Vidya Rattan nor Naubat Rai. have been produced by the respondents. So from the mere statement of Mohan Lal, it cannot be said that the possession of the shop in dispute was delivered back to Ram Kaur. Even otherwise, by delivering the possession back to Ram Kaur, a stranger, to the shop in dispute, it cannot be said that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner Bachan Singh and the respondent Mohan Lal has come to an end. Thus respondent Mohan Lal still continues to be a tenant over the premises in dispute and the relationship of landlord and tenants till exists between him and the petitioner Bachan Singh.

Now the respondents Mohinder Pal and Balwant Rai have averred that they took the premises in dispute from Ram Kaur and are her tenants. However, there is nothing on the record of the case to show that Ram Kaur had any interest or right in the suit property. None of the witnesses of the respondents have stated as to what right or interest Ram Kaur had in the suit property. Even the respondent Balwant Rai as RW8 and the respondent Mohan Lal as RW7 have not stated as to how Ram Kaur was concerned with the disputed shop. Even no suggestion has been put to the petitioner Bachan Singh regarding the ownership of Ram Kaur in the suit property. Ram Kaur was RW2 has stated in cross-examination that the owner of the disputed premises is Bachan Singh and he only is entitled to receive the rent.

So, clearly enough, from the evidence on the record of the case, it is not at all established that Ram Kaur had any right or interest in the disputed shop and was entitled to receive rent of the disputed shop.

Now according to section 2(c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, a landlord means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of the building. Thus when it is not established that Ram Kaur had any right to receive rent in respect of the disputed premises then she cannot be said to be the landlord of the premises in dispute.

When Ram Kaur is not the landlord of the premises in dispute and she had no right or interest in the disputed shop, then if the present respondents Mohinder Pal and Balwant Rai have been paying some amount as rent to her and have entered into an agreement or the compromise regarding the disputed shop with her, even then the respondent Mohinder Pal and Balwant Rai cannot be said to be the tenants of the disputed premises. Due to this reason, the receipt Ex.R-1, receipts Ex.R-10 to R-15, agreement Ex.RM, copy of the plaint Ex.RL and the other evidence led by the respondent in this regard do not help the respondents Balwant Rai and Mohinder Pal in establishing that they are the tenants of the premises in dispute.

In view of the above discussion, I hold that from the evidence on the record of the case it is fully established that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the present petitioner and the respondent Mohan Lal and that the respondents Mohinder Pal and Balwant Rai are not the tenants of the premises in dispute. Holding as such, I decide both these issues in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."

Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the statutory appeal u/s 15 of the Act was filed by Mohan Lal, Mohinder Pal and Balwant Rai against Bachan Singh by adding Mangat Ram as respondent. The learned first appellate authority for the reasons given in paras 5 to 10 allowed the appeal of the appellants (now respondents) and dismissed the rent petition u/s 13 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision by Bachan Singh, who claims himself to be the landlord of the property in dispute vis-a-vis Mohan Lal. Before I proceed further, I would also like to quote the reasons adopted by the first appellate authority in allowing the appeal of the respondents, which read as under :-

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that Mohan Lal was a tenant under Ram Kaur mother of Bachan Singh and he was never inducted in the shop by Bachan Singh. After he vacated the shop Mohinder Pal appellant and Balwant Rai became tenants under Ram Kaur and they had been paying rent to her. They were not sub-tenants under Mohan Lal. Four shops were given to Ram Kaur for her maintenance and she was receiving the rent of those shops, and this fact was very well established on record that Ram Kaur had been receiving rent. It was contended that the rent note on which the learned Rent Controller place much reliance was not a genuine document and it did not in any way prove that Mohan Lal was inducted in the shop by Bachan Singh in the year 1943. It was also urged that copy of the khasra girdawari placed on record to prove the fact that Mohan Lal was the tenant under Bachan Singh did not in any way prove that Mohan Lal was actually occupying the shop in the year 1976. This entry was rather contrary to the pleadings. Mohan Lal was admittedly not in possession of the shop in 1976. The entry in the khasra girdawari was some how manipulated and ejectment application was filed placing reliance on the same.

The learned counsel for Bachan Singh urged that Mohan Lal had executed a rent note Ex.A/1 in favour of Bachan Singh on 16.3.1943 and Mohan Lal never relinquished possession of the shop. So, he continued to be a tenant under Bachan Singh and the other respondents were sub-tenants and were liable to ejectment on that ground. I find that the main question for determination in this appeal is whether Mohan Lal was inducted as a tenant in the shop in question by Bachan Singh and whether reliance can be placed on the rent note Ex.A/1. To prove the execution of the rent note, Sarwan Singh stated that rent note was read over to Mohan Lal and he thumb-marked the same admitting it as correct. The possession of the shop was delivered to Mohan Lal by Bachan Singh petitioner. In his cross-examination, he was unable to say as to who was the scribe of the rent note. He admitted that Mohan Lal was already in possession of the shop when the rent note was executed. This witness belonged to village Kishanpura while the shop in question was situated in Moga. The witness gave his age as 45 years when his statement was recorded in 1977. The rent note was written in 1943 and the witness was only a child of 12 years of age when the rent note was executed. It can hardly be believed that a shop was let out in the presence of a child who was made to attest the rent note. The petitioner appeared as A W3 and stated that he let out the shop to Mohan Lal at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. Mohan Lal sub-let the shop and he was liable to ejectment. In his cross-examination, he stated that the shop was originally let out at Rs. 42/- per month and then the rent was enhanced to Rs. 50/- per month.

Certain circumstances on record will show that the rent note Ex.A/1 is not a genuine document and Mohan Lal was not inducted in the shop on the basis of this document. The applicant was hardly of the age of 14 years when he let out the shop as alleged by him. The rent note was not produced along with the application. A perusal of the list of reliance placed on record will show that the rent note was with-held though it was entered therein as one of the documents which was to be produced along with the application. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that attestation of Sarwan Singh was obtained subsequently and that is why the rent note was with-held. The ink and the writing of attestation is different from the ink of the rest of the contents of the documents. If Ex.A/1 would have been a genuine document then the applicant must have mentioned the correct rate of rent in the application. A perusal of para 2 of the application for ejectment shows that the rate of rent was mentioned as Rs. 50/- per month while in the rent deed the rate of rent is recorded as Rs. 25/- per month. It was nowhere explained in the application or in the statement of the applicant that originally the shop was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- and the rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 50/- per month. Rather the case of the applicant was that originally the rate of rent was Rs. 42/- and then it was enhanced to Rs. 50/- per month. The applicant produced only khasra girdawari for kharif 1976. Ex.A/y where in Mohan Lal is recorded to be in possession of the shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-for the first time. Copy of the jamabandi Ex. AX does not contain the name of Mohan Lal as a tenant. This solitary entry in the khasra girdawari will not in any way prove that Mohan Lal was in possession of the shop in 1976. It appears that after this entry was got made in the khasra girdawari the present application for ejectment was filed and since the rate of rent in the khasra girdawari was mentioned as Rs. 50/- per month so this rate was mentioned as Rs. 50/- per month so this rate was mentioned in the application.

There is the statement of Mohan Lal to the effect that he was inducted in the shop by Ram Kaur mother of the petitioner and in 1970 he delivered back the possession to Ram Kaur. Mohan Lal denied his thumb-impression on the rent note Ex. A/I and his thumb impression was never got compared with the thumb impression on the rent note.

The respondents No. 2 and 3 led evidence to show that they were inducted in the shop by Ram Kaur and they had been paying rent to her vide receipts Ex.R/4 to R/15 which were scribed by Major Vidya Mann, sister of the applicant. These receipts are thumb-marked by Ram Kaur. Ram Kaur was examined as RW2 to prove the receipts but she stated that she was unable to say whether the receipts were thumb-marked by her or not. She contended that she did not know Balwant Rai or Mohinder Pal but she admitted that Vidya Mann was her daughter and she was a Captain. She also admitted that the shop in question was in possession of Mohinder Pal and Balwant Rai for the last 10/12 years. In her cross-examination, she stated that Bachan Singh was the owner of the shop. Vidya Mann was examined as RW-3 and she stated that the receipts Ex. R-4 to R-15 were scribed by her, some of which were in favour of Mohan Lal and some were in favour of Mohinder Pal. These receipts were thumb-marked by her mother. She also admitted this fact that her mother owned four shops in the Main Bazar Moga and one of those shops was in possession of Mohinder Pal. Being the sister of the applicant she also tried to help him by saying that the shops belonged to her brother but she admitted that the same were given to her mother in lieu of maintenance. The mere execution of the receipts in favour of Mohan Lal and Mohinderpal by Ram Kaur and receipt of rent from them is enough to hold that Mohan Lal was a tenant under Ram Kaur and after he vacated the shop, Mohinderpal etc., were inducted in the shop by her.

Besides, this evidence, the respondent produced copy of the ejectment application Ex.R/2 which was filed by Ram Kaur against Mohinderpal, etc. with respect to the shop in question on 29.12.1976. This application was filed on the ground that Mohinderpal had sublet the shop to Balwant Rai and Mangat Ram. A compromise was effected between the parties which is Ex.R/M and the ejectment application was not pursed thereafter and the same was dismissed in default. The compromise was effected on 14.1.1997 vide this compromise the rent of the shop was enhanced to Rs. 100/- per month and the tenants were permitted to effect repairs. Ram Kaur also received advance rent from Mohinder Pal etc. from January, 1977 to 31.3.1977 vide receipt Ex.R/1. It was only after the mother of the applicant effected compromise and the rent was enhanced and she actually received advance rent, that the application for ejectment of Mohan Lal was filed. Mohan Lal had been regularly paying rent to Ram Kaur and the receipts were scribed by the daughter of Ram Kaur who is a literate lady. The documentary evidence on record proves it beyond doubt that Ram Kaur had been letting out the shop and had been receiving rent. She moved the ejectment application against the tenant and then agreement Ex.R/M was executed by her. Her statement in her cross-examination that Bachan Singh was the owner of the shop does not in any way help to prove the case of the applicant. The findings of the learned Rent Controller that Mohan Lal was inducted as a tenant by Bachan Singh are erroneous and cannot be maintained. The relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between Bachan Singh and Mohan Lal nor Mohinder Pal etc., are the sub-tenants in the shop. They are direct tenants in the shop under Ram Kaur mother of the applicant. The applicant was, therefore, not competent to seek ejectment of the respondent-appellants. In view of these findings I accept this appeal, set aside the order dated 31.1.1981 and dismiss the application for ejectment with costs.

I have heard Mr. Sanjay Majithia, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Ms. Himani Sarin, Advocate, on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

This revision has arisen from the order of reversal and, in these circumstances, my first anxiety would always be to re-appreciate the evidence which has been led by the parties before the trial Court. The findings of the High Court on issue No. 1 are very material. If there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between Bachan Singh and Mohan Lal, then this revision has to meet the same fate has held by the appellate authority.

Though an effort was made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner that it is established on the record that Mohan Lal was a tenant of the demised premises under Shri Bachan Singh and so much so, the tenancy was in writing, which was executed somewhere in the year 1943 and there is no proof at all that Mohan Lal ever delivered the possession of the shop in question to the petitioner and, in these circumstances, a reasonable inference can always be drawn that Mohan Lal has "parted possession of the demised premises to Mohinder Pal and Balwant Rai, who themselves allege and claim that they are the direct tenants in the shop in dispute under Ram Kaur. The counsel further submitted that the rent note, Ex.A-1, has been proved on the record from the statement of Sarwan Singh son of Uttam Singh, who appeared in the witness box. Mohan Lal, respondent No. 1, appeared in the witness box and he stated that he delivered the possession of the shop in question in the presence of two persons; namely Vidya Rattan and Naubat Rai. Both these persons are alive and none has been examined by respondent No. 1 to show that he ever delivered the possession of the petitioner. The counsel also submitted that even Mohan Lal admits in his cross-examination that he remained in possession of the shop in question for 30 years approximately and, therefore, this lends a reasonable inference that the shop was let out to him by the petitioner Bachan Singh who also states that the property in question was let out to Mohan Lal somewhere in the year 1943.

I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and am of the considered opinion that these contentions are totally devoid of any merit and that the reasons adopted by the Rent Controller were also erroneous while the appellate authority has rightly drawn the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Bachan Singh and Mohan Lal, Mohinder Pal and Balwant Rai.

I would like to discuss this case from scratch. The case set up by the petitioner in para 2 of the petition was that respondent No. 1 was a tenant in the demised premises under him at a monthly rental of Rs. 50/- per month excluding house tax and other taxes. So much so, the petitioner has also averred that he was attaching the copy of the rent note allegedly executed by respondent No. 1. At the trial, the petitioner has relied upon the document, Ex.A-1, which according to him, is the rent note allegedly executed by respondent No. 1 in the presence of Sarwan Singh. It may be mentioned at the first instance that this document, Ex.A-1 was not on a stamp paper. It was never written by any scribe. A leaf from the Bahi has been taken out and a rent note has been drafted in Urdu. Who is the scribe of the document has neither been examined nor it is known to us. This document bears one thumb impression of Mohan Lal and signatures of Sarwan Singh son of Uttam Singh of Moga in Punjabi. In the opinion of this Court, this document appears to be a fabricated one, but any way, this document does not create a relationship of landlord and tenant for various reasons. As per this document, which was allegedly executed on 16.3.1943 with respect to a shop owned by Gurbachan Singh and Kartar Singh, the shop was allegedly given on rent at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month and the tenancy was created from year to year starting from 1.4.1943 to 31.3.1944. In this view of the matter, this document besides stamp also required registration u/s 17 of the Registration Act. There fore, the document cannot be looked into for the purposes of relationship of landlord and tenant but at the most could be used for collateral purposes u/s 49 of the Registration Act. Be that as it may, one thing is evident that as per this document, the rent of the shop was @ Rs. 25/- per month. It was not the case of the petitioner at all that he let out the shop to Mohan Lal @ Rs. 25/- at one time or that it was subsequently increased to Rs. 50/- from time to time, etc. As I have stated above, the document is thumb marked by Mohan Lal. There is thumb impression of Mohan Lal on the Power of Attorney and also on the written statement. The petitioner has not taken any care to examine any handwriting expert for the comparison of the thumb impression of Mohan Lal nor proved the execution of the document. There is also no proof that the petitioner had been receiving the rent right from 1943 upto the date when he filed the ejectment petition against the respondents. The things do not rest here. A naked glance to the document, Ex.A-1, would further show that the signatures of Sarwan Singh in Punjabi are in a different ink from the other writing on tfie document, Ex.A-1. So much so, the words "Sarwan Singh pissar Uttam Singh" are also in different ink. I may here translate the word ''pissar'', which means ''son of. So much so, Sarwan Singh appeared as AW-1. His statement was recorded in the Court of the rent controller on 20.7.1997. He gave his age on oath as 45 years on that day, meaning thereby that on the date of the alleged execution of the document, this man was a small child of 11 years. Of course, in the cross-examination the witness stated that he was aged 24/25 years at the time of execution of the document, Ex.A-1, but this cannot be believed in view of the other attending circumstances which completely over-shadow the proof of the due execution of the document, Ex.A-1. The other witness in this regard is the petitioner himself who appeared as AVV-3. This witness also gave his age as 47 years when his statement was made before the rent controller on 3.3.1978, clearly indicating that at the time of the alleged execution of the said document, he was also a minor boy. How, in these circumstances, it can be said that Bachan Singh had let out the shop in question to Mohan Lal, respondent No. 1.

In order to create a relationship of landlord and tenant, an agreement is required vide which the landlord agrees to transfer the interest in the immovable property. Seeing the weakness of his case, the petitioner, then, placed on record two documents, Exs.AX and AY, Ex.AX is the jamabandi for the year 1969-70. In the column of ownership, the names of Bachan Singh, Inder Singh, Nand Kaur and Bachan Singh s/o Thaman Singh, have been recorded. In the column of cultivation, it has been recorded Makbooja Mal-kaan. Ex. AY is the khasra girdawari for the year 1975-76 and in the column of cultivation, the name of Mohan Lal in the capacity of Kiraydaar @ Rs. 50/- per month under Bachan Singh, Pissedar, is mentioned.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of Ex. A- 1, it can be reasonably inferred that Mohan Lal was a tenant under Bachan Singh. This entry cannot be relied upon because this entry does not create a relationship of landlord and tenant. Moreover, it is a single stray entry. Therefore, these two documents, again, do not advance the case of the petitioner.

As against this, there is abundant oral and documentary evidence to suggest that in fact this shop was occupied by Mohan Lal and that he had been paying the rent to the mother of the petitioner who got this property under the family settlement in lieu of her maintenance. In this regard, the first document is Ex.R-1 which shows that a receipt has been executed by Ram Kaur on 14.1.1977 through which, she had received the rent starting from January, 1977 upto 31.3.1977. Ex.R-2 is the ejectment petition which was filed by Ram Kaur on 29.12.1976 against Mohinder Pal. Balwant Rai and Mangat Ram, who are respondents 2 to 4 in the petition u/s 13 or the Act in which Ram Kaur had clearly stated that she is landlord having a life interest for maintenance in the shop and respondent Mohinder Pal is a tenant under her at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month for the last 5 years, clearly suggesting that Mohinder Pal and Balwant Rai started occupying the shop in question in their own right as direct tenant since 1970 or 1971. In Ex.R-2, it was the stand of the landlady that respondent No. 1 had sub-let the shop to respondent 2 and 3. Mohan Lal does not figure in this rent petition. In view of the admission made by Ram Kaur it cannot be said that the present petitioner Bachan Singh, who is son of Ram Kaur was the landlord of the demised premises or that he delivered the possession to the respondents. Ex.R-4 is the receipt dated 2.7.1970 for a sum of Rs. 48/-issued by Ram Kaur in which it is clearly stated that she had received the rent for the month of July, 1970 from, Mohan Lal. Ex.R-5 is the receipt in the sum of Rs. 48/- dated 3.8.1970, through which Ram Kaur received the rent of the shop for the month of August, 1970 from Mohan Lal. Similarly, through Ex.R06, the receipt of Rs. 48/- the rent for the month of September, 1970 has been received. Ex.R-7 is the report of Rs. 48/- through which the rent of April, 1970 was received from Mohan Lal. Exs.R-8 and 9, are two more receipts indicating that the rent was received for the months of May and June, 1970. When the property was on rent at the rate of Rs. 48/- per month in the year 1970, it is not believable how this property would be on rent @ Rs. 50/- per month in the year 1943. Ex.R-10 is receipt dated 15.9.1970 for a sum of Rs. 120/- through which rent for the months of September and October, 1970 was received by Ram Kaur from Mohinder Pal s/o Daulat Singh. It is suggestive of the fact that the rent of the shop was increased and Ram Kaur started treating Mohinder Pal as a tenant. Ex.R-11 is a receipt dated 12.10.1970 for a sum of Rs. 80/- issued in favour of Mohinder Pal pertaining to rent for the month of November, 1970. Ex.R-12 and 13 are the receipts of Rs. 80/- for the months of December, 1970 and January, 1971 through which the rent in advance was received by Ram Kaur. Ex.R-14 is the receipt dated 12.3.1971 for a sum of Rs. 160/-vide which the rent for the months of February and March, 1971 was received in advance from Mohinder Pal. Ex.R-15 is yet another receipt for a sum of Rs. 240/- through which the rent for the months of July, August and September, 1971 was received by Ram Kaur from Mohinder Pal. This chain of documentary evidence clearly suggests that Mohan Lal was inducted as a tenant by Ram Kaur. Earlier the rent of the shop was Rs. 48/- per month, then, the rent was increased to Rs. 80/- but the shop was given on rent to Mohinder Pal. It may also be mentioned here that respondent No. 3 is the real brother of Mohinder Pal and, in these circumstances, the point of sub-letting will also remain a remote factor. By that as it may, we are only concerned whether there existed any relationship of Bachan Singh and Mohan Lal. The above evidence would show that there was an agreement between Ram Kaur, mother of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. So much so, an agreement was also executed on 14.1.1977 between Ram Kaur on one side and Mohinder Pal on the other side in which there is a clear admission on the part of Ram Kaur that she had been receiving the rent of the shop in question @ Rs. 80/- per month. She has also acknowledged in this very agreement that the shop is being occupied by Mohinder Pal and Balwant Rai. This agreement was executed prior to the decision of the ejectment petition. Ex.R-2, which was dismissed as withdrawn.

Here, I would also like to deal with the criticism of the counsel for the petitioner of the statements of the witnesses of the respondents. The counsel submitted that Ram Kaur appeared as RW-2 and she categorically stated that the rent of the shop in question used to be realized by Bachan Singh. The witness has also stated in the same breath that earlier she had been executing the receipts. Whey she is deposing in favour of the petitioner is not difficult to infer. She admits that her son Bachan Singh resides with her. What it appears to be is that some compromise had been effected between the mother and son and for that reason, she stated that her son is the owner of the property and that he is entitled to receive the rent. Be that as it may, the point for determination is whether in the year 1943, the relationship of landlord and tenant had been created between the petitioner and Mohan Lal or not. RW-3 is Vidya Mann d/o Ram Kaur. She has clearly stated that four shops, though owned by Gurbachan Singh, but were in the possession of her mother in lieu of her maintenance. It may be clarified that the shop in question is one of those shops. Mohan Lal, respondent No. 1, categorically stated that he took the shop in question on rent from Ram Kaur @ Rs. 48/- per month and in the year 1969-70, he delivered the possession of the same to Ram Kaur. He never sub-let the premises to respondents 2, 3 or 4. This man categorically denied his thumb impression on Ex.A-1. He further stated that no rent note was executed in favour of Ram Kaur. It is not necessary that the tenant always takes the receipts when he delivers the possession to the landlord. Obtaining of a receipt may be a corroborative piece of evidence but in the present case, it stands established that from 1970 onwards Ram Kaur had been accepting enhanced rent from respondent No. 2 Mohinder Pal treating him as a tenant.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mohan Lal admits in the cross-examination that he occupied this shop for 30: years but he had not been able to prove any receipt from the year 1940 to 1970.

Counsel for the petitioner has forgotten a basic thing that the receipts upto April, May, June, July, August and September, 1970 Exs.R-7, R-8, R-9, R-4, R-5 and R-6 have been proved on the record. In this view of the continuity of the receipts, it can always be inferred that the earlier rent has also been paid to the landlady. Whey the petitioner has not examined any expert in order to prove the alleged thumb impression of Mohan Lal on Ex.A-1 has not been explained. The petitioner has tried to make out a case which is neither here nor there.

In this view of the matter, I am inclined to endorse the reasons, which are cogent and convincing of the first appellate authority and do not see any merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.