Harminder Singh vs Kartar Singh and Another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This if tenant''s petition against whom the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but allowed in appeal.

The premises, in dispute are a part of the residential building bearing No. 495, situated in Raj Guru Street, Ludhiana, comprised of five rooms, one kitchen, two verandahs, bath room and a common entrance. K.artar Singh, landlord-respondent, filed the application for ejectment on February 23, 1978, for the eviction of Harbans Singh and his son Harminder Singh, respectively, from the premises, in dispute, inter alia on the ground that the premises had bees let out by Harbans Singh, tenant, to Harminder Singh, Respondent. In the written statement filed by Harbans Siugh, Respondent, it was pleaded that he never took the premises on rent. He maintained that he had been living in the house near Police Division No. 3, owned by his wife, since the year 1967, when the tenancy was said to have commenced and that for the last eight years, he was residing in a rented house in Deep Nagar, Ludhiaaa According to him, he never resided in the premises, in dispute, and, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between him and the landlord. He alto stated that Harminder Singh was occupying the premises, in dispute, as a tenant directly under the landlord in his own right and had been paying the rent to him. It was further stated that the premises, in question, were taken on rent by Harminder Singh, as a practising Advocate, for use as his office and also for his residence. In the written statement filed on behalf of Harminder Singh, it was pleaded that he was residing in the demised premises as a tenant and that Harbans Singh, Respondent, never lived therein It was further pleaded that the premises were taken on rent by him in the year 1967 and, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between him and the landlord. According to him, his father Harbans Singh, Respondent, was living separately from him since long The landlord had settled at Amritsar and had no intention to come to Ludhiana. The learned Rent Controller negatived all the other pleas taken by the landlord including the plea of relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Harbans Singh. It was found that Harminder Singh, was a direct tenant under the landlord and, therefore, the question of subletting the premises as such did not arise, as alleged. As a result, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the only point agitated on behalf of the landlord was the question of subletting. The learned Appellate Authority after discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that it was Harbans Singh, Respondent, who was inducted as a tenant by the landlord and that Harminder Singh, was allowed to occupy the premises, in dispute, by his father, Harbans Singh, Respondent, and not by the landlord, as alleged by him. Thus, the case of subletting was held to have been proved by the landlord. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, Harminder Singh, has filed this revision petition in this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that from the evidence on the record, it was amply proved that Harbans Singh, Respondent, never occupied the premises, in dispute, and that it was Harminder Singh, alone who occupied the same as a tenant under Kartar Singh, landlord. According to the Learned Counsel the finding of the Rent Controller in this behalf was correct and that the same has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily and against the evidence on record. It was also contended that the alleged sub-tenant Harminder Singh, is the son of Harbans Singh, tenant, and, therefore, the question of subletting as such did not arise. Reliance in this behalf was placed on Om Parkask v. Jugal Kitkore 1971 R.C.J. 873 Nanak Chand v, Santar Chand 1982 CRI.L.J. (C & Cr.). 263 and Smt. Krishnawanti v. Hans Raj 1975 R.C.J. 164 (S.C.).

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record The learned Appellate Authority has discussed the entire evidence exhaustively and all the points taken by the Rent Controller. After discussion, a firm finding has been returned that there was the relationship of land lord and tenant between the landlord and Harbans Singh, responded and that the Respondent had parted with the possession of the pre mises, in dispute, to Harminder Singh, Respondent, and thus, both of them were liable (o be ejected from the premises on the ground of subletting. The gravamen of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, was that from the very beginning, Harminder Singh, had been occupying the premises as such and was havirg his residence as well as his office as an Advocate therein. The fact that Harminder Singh, had been occupying the premises from the very beginning is not of much relevance because the main question in this case is: whether Harbans Singh, Respondent; got the premises on rent from Kartar Singh, landlord, and it was. he who occupied the premises as such and had been paying the rent and later on he vacated the premises and allowed his son Harminder Singh, to remain in occupation thereof?. There is no evidence on the record to show that Harminder Singh, ever paid the rent to the landlord from the year 1967 when the tenancy commenced till the year 1978 when the ejectment application was fifed; rather the evidence on the record which has been relied upon by the Appellate Authority is that it was Harbans Singh, Respondent,, who had been paying the rent to Kartar Singh, landlord As observed earlier, if Harminder Singh, was living with his father Harbans Singh, Respondent, in the premises, in dispute, it would be of no consequence since the, rent, was being, paid by Harbans Singh, Respondent as tenant to the landlord Moreover, the landlord was not residing at Ludhiana where the premises are situated. He was only concerned with the rent of the demised premises which was being paid to him by Harbans Singh, Respondent. When he came to know that Harbans Singh, Respondent, was no more in occupation of the premises, in dispute, he filed the ejectment application. There is no cogent evidence on the record to prove that Harbans Singh, Respondent, was in occupation of any other premises from the year 1967 onwards; rather the evidence the record in the form of voters'' list is that Harbans Singh, Respondent, was in occupation of the premises, in dispute, which falsifies the stand taken by Harbans Singh, Respondent, and his son Harminder Singh. It has been rightly observed by the Appellate Authority, that no documentary evidence whatsoever was produced by the tenant to show that previously Harbans Singh, Respondent, was residing in the house owned by his wife at Benjamin Road and then in a rented, house at Deep Nagar, Ludhiana. The oral evidence produced in this behalf was, disbelieved by the Appellate Authority. Once this fact, is established that Harminder Singh, never paid any rent to Kartar Singh, landlord, and that Harbans Singh, Respondent, failed to prove that he was residing anywhere else from the year 1967 onwards, it clearly proves that it was a case of subletting. From the evidence, it is evident that the premises were let out to Harbans Singh, Respondent, who occupied the tame as such and he had been paying the rent regularly. Later on, he walked cut of the premises and allowed bit son Harminder Singh, Respondent, to occupy the same who now claims himself to be a direct tenant under the landlord. Under the circumstances, the plea of subletting is clearly established from the evidence 01 the record in the present case. Otherwise also, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the firm findings recorded by the Appellate Authority as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction- The Appellate Authority has discussed the entire evidence and the version put up by the Respondents there has not been believed. The authorities relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner have no relevancy and are not applicable to the facts of the present ease.

Consequently, this revision petition fails and ii dismissed with suits. However, the Petitioner is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and the advance rent for three months is deposited with the Rent Controller within a month.

Petition dismissed.