Harbans Singh (Tenant) vs Malkiat Singh and Another

V.K. Bali, J.—This revision has been directed by Harbans Singh, who was styled by the landlord to be a sub-tenant on the premises in dispute, against the order rendered by the Appellate Authority dated 24th of March, 1981.

Brief facts of the case reveal that landlord Malkiat Singh filed a petition u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of Achhar Singh and Harbans Singh tenant and sub-tenant from demised premises on various grounds like non-payment of rent, building required by the landlord for his bona fide necessity and the original tenant Achhar Singh having sublet the building to the petitioner Harbans Singh. Rent Controlelr vide its order dated 13th of October, 1979 allowed the eviction petition on the ground of nonpayment of rent and the building having been sublet by the original tenant Achhar Singh to Harbans Singh. It may be mentioned here that inasmuch as arrears of rent were tendered by Harbans Singh the finding of the Rent Controller was that the tender was not valid.

Against the order of the Rent Controller two separate appeals, one by Harbans Singh and other by Achhar Singh were filed. Both these appeals came to be disposed of by one order. Whereas the Appellate Authority accepted the appeal preferred by Achhar Singh, the one preferred by the present petitioner was dismissed.

The parties had gone on trial on the following issues:-

Whether Achhar Singh respondent was the tenant of the petitioner and he has sublet the premises in dispute to respondent No. 2 Harbans Singh? OPA

Whether the premises in dispute have been rented partly for residential purposes? OPA

Whether the tender of rent is not valid? OPA

Whether the respondent Harbans Singh is a tenant of Malkiat Singh petitioner? OPR

4-A Whether the applicant required the house in dispute for his own use and occupations?

Relief.

The Appellate Authority returned findings on issue No. 1 in favour of Achhar Singh. Under issue No. 4, the Appellate Authority held that Harbans Singh was not a tenant of Malkiat Singh and, in fact, had occupied the premises in dispute by force.

Mr. M.L Sarin, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Hemani Sarin vehemently contends that once appeal preferred by Achhar Singh who styled to be the original tenant of the landlord Malkiat Singh was accepted, there was no question to dismiss the appeal preferred by Harbans Singh the one who was alleged to be sub-tenant.

In peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I find no merit in the only contention raised by Mr. Sarin. It is clear from the reading of the record that two rent notes were produced before the Rent Controller. Whereas one rent note was set up by Malkiat Singh to show Achhar Singh as tenant, other rent note was set up by Harbans Singh to show himself as tenant of the premises. The learned Appellate Authority on the basis of oral and documentary evidence has rejected both the rent notes. If the findings are that two rent notes, referred to above, are forged and fabricated, and it may be mentioned here that no endeavor at all has been made to show that such findings are vitiated, the Appellate Authority could well accept the appeal preferred by Achhar Singh and dis-miss the one filed by Harbans Singh. It may be mentioned that in the operative part of the order, the learned Appellate Authority has held that in so far as Har- bans Singh is concerned, he is tres-passer having occupied the premises unauthorizedly. The learned Appellate Authority has not ordered the eviction of the petitioner and has in fact only mentioned that the owner can file a suit for possession in the Civil Court. Confronted with this situation, Mr. Sarin says that the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority would operate as res-judicata against the petitioner and, therefore, the present revision was preferred. This Court is of the view that findings recorded by the authorities constituted under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act cannot operate as res judicata in the civil Court. It could not be disputed that proceedings before the authorities under the Rent Restriction Act are summary in nature.

Finding nomerit in this revision petition, I dismiss the same.