Inder Singh and Another vs Raghbir Chand and Another

D.V. Sehgal, J.—Raghbir Chand, Respondent No. l claiming himself to be the owner and landlord filed an application on 12th April, 1977 in the Court of Rent Controller, Sunam, u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ''the Act'') for ejectment of Charan Dass Respondent No. 2. It was stated therein that two houses fully described in the head note of the application had been let out by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 vide rent note dated 22nd December, 1976. Respondent No. 2 had been continuing as tenant in the said premises since 1.4.1976. As per the conditions of the rent note, the period of tenancy was one \\ear from 1.4.1976 to 31.3.1977. The ejectment of Respondent No. 2 was sought on two grounds, namely that he neither paid nor tendered the rent right from 1.4.1976 in spite of the fact that a sum of Rs 180/- was agreed by him to be paid to Respondent No. 1 by 25.12.1976 as mentioned in the rent note and that he had sublet the aforesaid premises to Inder Singh and Ronaq Singh who are Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in the present revision petition. He had sublet the. premises without the written consent of Respondent No. 1 to Inder Singh and Ronaq Singh. Respondent No. 2 filed his written statement. He admitted the ownership of Respondent No 1 qua the premises in dispute. He also admitted that he was a tenant under him but pleaded that he had paid rent for eight months as mentioned in the rent note. He also admitted that he had sublet the premises to the Petitioners without the written consent of the landlord. The real contest against Respondent No. 1, however, came from the Petitioners, who filed their separate written statement. They disputed the ownership of Respondent No. 1 qua the premises in dispute. They also denied that the premises were ever let out by Respondent No 1 to Respondent No. 2 or that the same were sublet further by Respondent No. 2 to them They alleged that the application for ejectment had been filed by Respondent No. I in collusion with Respondent No 2 They claimed that they were in possession of the premises in dispute since the time of their father and they are thus, the owners of the same On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller, framed the following issues:

Whether Respondents are liable to be ejected on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPA

Whether the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to try the petition ? OPR

Whether the petition is collusive between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 ? If so its effect? OPR

Relief

After receiving evidence of the parties and appreciating the same, the learned Rent Controller returned his finding against Respondent No 1 as regards issue No. 1 and in favour of the Petitioners on issues Nos. 2 and 3. He held that the ejectment application had been filed by Respondent No. 1 in collusion with Respondent No 2. There was infact, no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The Rent Controller, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and as a result, the Petitioners were not liable to ejectment from the premises in dispute. He, therefore, dismissed the ejectment application vide his order dated 7.2.1278 Respondent No. 1 being aggrieved against the aforesaid order, filed an appeal u/s 15(2) of the Act before the learned Appellate Authority, Sangrur which was allowed. The finding of the Rent Controller on all the issues was reversed. It was held that the relationship of landlord and tenant between Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had been established and the factum of subletting of the premises by Respondent No. 2 in favour of the Petitioners without written consent of Respondent No. 1 was admitted by Respondent No. 2 and was, therefore, proved Consequently, the appeal was allowed and an order of ejectment of Respondent No. 1 and the Petitioners from the premises in dispute was passed. This is how the Petitioners have filed the present revision petition in this Court.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through their pleadings and the evidence adduced by them before the learned Rent Controller. I am of the considered view that the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. Reasons for the same follow.

As already pointed out above, the ejectment application was filed by Respondent No. 1 on 11.4.1977. Rent note dated 22.12.1976 which Respondent No. 2 admits to have executed mentions that be had taken the said two bouses on rent for the period from 1.4.1976 to 31.3.1977. The rental was fixed at Rs. 20/- per month. He undertook to pay rent for nine months from 1.4.1976 onwards by 25.12.1976. In the ejectment application, however, it is complained that Respondent No. 2 did not pay any rent to Respondent No. 1 from 1.4.1976 onwards. It is further averred in the application that Respondent No. 3 has sublet the premises to the Petitioners three months prior to the filing of the application i. e. somewhere in the first fortnight of January, 1977. This would mean that a few days after the execution of rent note Exhibit P.1, Respondent No. 2 sublet the premises to the Petitioners. In his written statement Respondent No. 2 straightway admitted that he had sublet the premises to the Petitioners and further averred that the ejectment application filed by Respondent No. 1 should be allowed. No doubt, he disputed the allegations of non-payment of rent and instead that he had paid Rs. 180/- to Respondent No. 1. Shanti Sarup, A. W. 1 who is the petition writer and scribe of rent note Exhibit P. 1 was not cross-examined by Respondent No. 2 at all. However, during the course of cross-examination by the Petitioners, he deposed that he did not know whether Respondent No 2 ever came into occupation of the said houses nor did he know whether or not, Respondent No. 1 is owner of the same* He further stated that he had not seen the Petitioners in the premises. A. W. 2 Muni Lal is the attesting witness of rent note Exhibit P. 1. He deposed that Respondent No 2 himself had been residing in the said house before he let out the same to the Petitioners. He, however, denied knowledge of the fact as to when Respondent No 1 vacated the said house or that when Respondent No. 2 had taken possession thereof from Respondent No 1. He denied knowledge of the number of rooms in the premises nor could he describe the boundaries of the same. He further stated that the premises were not sublet by Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioners in his presence. Respondent No 1 himself appeared in the witness box as AW3. He could not tell the length and width of the houses in question. He, however stated that there is only one room and one deodhi therein. He further stated that the premises in dispute were lying vacant before these were let out to Charan Dass. Earlier Dev Raj and other persons were tenants who had executed the rent note in his favour which was in his possession. After the evidence adduced by the Petitioners in rebuttal and in support of their own case, Charan Dass Respondent No. 2 appeared in the witness box as RW 3. He frankly admitted the case as stated by Respondent No. 1 and thus invited his ejectment. The Petitioners examined Attar Singh RW 1, who deposed that they were in possession of the house since long as owners. He described the boundaries of the same. Murari Lal RW 2 prepared the site plan of the premises. He however, stated in cross-examination that he did not know the municipal No of the house. Inder Singh, Petitioner No. 1 appeared as his own witness He stated that they were the owners of the premises in dispute and Respondent No. 1 had got no concern with the same. In cross-examination he admitted that the houses in dispute are located within the municipal limits of Sunam but he did not know whether his name was entered as owner of the same in the record of the Municipal Committee. In rebuttal, Respondent No. 1 once again put Shanti Parshad petition writer in the witness box who proved rent note Exhibit AW1/A which according to him was scribed by him. He also produced Chhaju Singh AW 4, an attesting witness of the said rent note and Dev Raj AW 5, the alleged tenant. Rent note Exhibit AW 1/A is to the effect that one house had been taken on rent by Dev Raj from Respondent No 1 for one year from 1.9.1974 to 31.8.1975 at the rate of Rs. 15/ per month. There are some entries on the reverse side of this rent note regarding receipt of rent which have, however, not been proved.

Strangely enough, while Respondent No 2 required proof from the Petitioners during cross-examination of Inder Singh, Petitioner No. 1 as to the their ownership of the houses in dispute and put a specific question whether they were recorded as owners thereof in the municipal record, he himself did not adduce any evidence worth the name to prove that he was the owner of the house. He, no doubt, made an attempt by placing on the record a certified copy of the assessment register of the Municipal Committee, Sunam, mark ''A'' to the effect that he is the owner of the houses Nos 98 to 100. But these municipal Nos. have not been connected with the two houses in dispute. Thus, there is no evidence whatsoever on the record to the effect that Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the house in dispute

As regards the alleged tenancy of Respondent No. 2 under Respondent No. 1 through rent note Exhibit P l, it appeals to be entirely a made-up affair It is strange that while Respondent No. 2 was given house on rent from 1.4.1976. even at the time of execution of the rent note on 22.12.1976. he did not pay any rent to Respondent No. 1 for the period from 1.4.1976 onwards. Instead, he promised to make the payment on 25.12.1976. The grievance of Respondent No. 1 in the ejectment application is that he has not made any payment of rent. Again a few days after the execution of rent note Exhibit P. 1, Respondent No. 2 is alleged to have sublet the premises in dispute. In my view the learned Rent Controller rightly reached at the conclusion that Respondent No. 1 has not only failed to prove himself to be the landlord of the premises but he has also miserably failed to prove that he further handed over the vacant possession of the houses in dispute to Respondent No 2 as a tenant Mere admission of Respondent No 2 that he sublet the premises to the Petitioners is no avail as the circumstances amply show that there is a collusion between Respondent No. 1 and 2. There is no other evidence of handing over of the possession of the premises by Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioners as sub-tenants. Rent note Exhibit AW1/A is also of no help to Respondent No 1. It is not shown which of the two houses was in possession of Dev Raj AW 3. Dev Raj is alleged to be working in Courts at Sunam. He appears to have become handy to create evidence of his alleged tenancy under Respondent No. 1. No credence can, therefore, be attached to such evidence. The learned Appellate Authority did not go into any of these aspects which had been closely examined by the learned Rent Controller. I, therefore, reverse the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority on all the issues and restore those of the learned Rent Controller.

As a result, I allow this revision petition, set aside the order of ejectment passed by the learned Appellate Authority and restore the order of the learned Rent Controller whereby ejectment application filed by Respondent No. 1 was dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs so far as this revision petition is concerned.