Gauri shankar (deceased) Represented by Swt. Sheila Devi and Others vs Gopal Krishan Sood

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.—This revision petition hat bee filed by Gauri Shankar, tenant and Madan Lal, subtenant, against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 22nd September, 1977 ordering their ejectment on the ground of tub tenancy.

Briefly, the facts are that Gopal Krishan, landlord gave the shop on lease for a period of one year to Gauri Shankar on an annual rent of Rs. 875/- on 10th September, 1963 vide rent note, Exhibit A-5. It is alleged that subsequently Gauri Shankar sublet the premises to Mohan Lal, sub-tenant who was carrying on the business of selling cloth in that shop, without the consent of the landlord Consequently he prayed that the order of ejectment be passed against them.

The petition was contested by the Respondents who, inter alia, pleaded that they constituted a Joint Hindu Family and the business carried on in the shop was a Joint Hindu Family business. It was further pleaded that Gauri Shankar took the shop on behalf of the Joint Hindu Family for its business. The business was being run in the name of Madan Lal Rajesh Kumar Madan Lal was the father and Rajesh Kumar was the son of Gauri Shankar.

The learned Rent Controller held that the subletting was not proved and that the application was filed mala fide. Consequently he dismissed the application for ejectment. The landlord went up in appeal. The Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and held that the shop was sublet by Gauri Shankar to Madan Lal. It, however, did not record any finding that the application was filed mala fids. The tenant and sub-tenant have come up in revision to this Court.

During the pendency of the revision petition both of them died and the Petitioners have become parties as their legal representatives.

The main question that arises for determination is as to whether the premises were sublet by Gauri Shankar to Madan Lal or the business carried on in the shop was a Joint Hindu Family business. The Appellate Authority, taking into consideration the evidence, came to the conclusion that the business was not a Joint Hindu Family business and that the shop was sublet by Gauri Shankar to Madan Lal. Normally the findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below are not interfered with in revision. In this case I have gone through the evidence and considered the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners but find that there are also no sufficient grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority. The main ground for rejecting the plea of the Petitioners is that income tax re-turn was filed by Madan Lal in which the business was not shown as a joint Hindu Family business but as his individual business. Admittedly Gauri Shankar was carrying en dairy business in another shop Madan Lal has made a statement that he had been paying the rent to the landlord. However, the account books relating to the present business showing that the rent was being paid by Madan Lal to the landlord have not been produced. The receipts of payment of the rent by Madan Lal have also not been produced. After taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances. I am of the opinion that the view expressed by the Appellate Authority is correct. Consequently I affirm the same.

Faced with this situation Mr. Garg sought to argue that the Rent Controller returned a finding that the application for ejectment was filed mala fide but no finding has been given by the Appellate Authority in that regard. He submits that an adjoining shop was given on lease by the mother of the landlord at a rent of Rs. 225/- per mensem and the Petitioners are paying rent at the rate of Rs. 875/- per annual. He further submits that Madan Lal deposed that the landlord wanted the rent to be enhanced. I do not find any force in this submission as well. In fact the plea becomes insignificant in view of the earlier finding. The statement of Madan Lal cannot be accepted in this regard.

Far the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merit in the revision petition and dismiss the same. However, I grant the Petitioners three months time to vacate the premises subject to payment of rent. The tenants should deposit all arrears of rent and the rent for three months within a period of one month. In case the Petitioners fail to deposit the rent within the aforesaid period, they will fee liable to be ejected forthwith. No order as to costs.