Jatinder Singh vs Surti Ram

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition had been filed by Jatinder Singh petitioner directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, dated 4.4.1989. By virtue of the said judgement, learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, dated 7.3.1987 and instead an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and sub-letting.

The relevant facts are that respondent Suit Ram had filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner and one Ravi Jagpal Singh. It was asserted that the property in question was let to Ravi Jagpal Singh (respondent No.2 in the revision petition) at a monthly rent of Rs. 195/- on 4.1.1980. The said respondent No.2 had not paid the arrears of rent since September, 1983 onwards and further it was contended that he has sublet the premises to the petitioner without the consent in writing of respondent No.1 landlord. Notice of the petition was issued. Respondent No.3 did not put in appearance despite service and was proceeded ex parte. The petitioner contested the claim of the respondent-landlord. He set up defence that the himself is a tenant of the respondent-landlord and thus the question of subletting does not arise. He further pointed out that rent has already been paid uptil September, 1984.

The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and appraised the evidence. It was held by the learned Rent Controller that the petitioner has been making payment of rent to the respondent-landlord and had been accepted as a tenant by the respondent-landlord, therefore, the question of subletting did not arise. It was also held that he had paid the arrears of rent. Reliance was placed on the receipts set up by the petitioner. Accordingly, the eviction petition was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the same, an appeal has been preferred by Surti Ram respondent. The learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller and it was held that the receipt could not be acted upon. Respondent No.2 was the tenant and continues to be so. Thus the petitioner was held to be a sub-tenant in the property. An order of eviction was passed on the ground that the arrears of rents were due which were not paid on the first date of hearing.

Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition had been filed.

It is claimed by respondent No.1 that the property had been let to respondent No.2. He had set up a rent note Exhibit A-1. It reveals that the property was let to respondent No.2 on 4.1.1980. Respondent No.1 even produced Kartar Singh who had scribed the said rent note and the attesting witness Chanan Ram. The fact that respondent No.2 was a tenant in the property is further established because it was suggested even to respondent No.1 during cross-examination by the petitioner that Ravi Jagpal Singh, respondent No.2 vacated the property and had left it. Thus, it must follow that the learned Appellate Authority rightly concluded that the property had been let to respondent No.2.

However, petitioner''s claim was that he has been accepted as a direct tenant in the property after respondent No.2 had vacated the said premises. Receipts Exhibit R-1 to R-25 have been produced to show that he has been making payment of rent directly to respondent No.1. The learned Appellate Authority rightly rejected these receipts to be forged. This is for the reason that all the receipts were typed at the same time in the year 1982. None of the receipts was bearing any date as to when it had been issued. The landlord-respondent had denied the execution of the same. Thus, it was not established that there was any intention to create a demise in favour of the petitioner.

Strong reliance was placed on the fact that there was a licence obtained by the petitioner in the year 1982 on the address of the suit premises. But, at best it would establish that the petitioner was in occupation of the property in the year 1982. The licence had not been obtained with the consent of the landlord indicating that the petitioner was a tenant. Therefore, it only shows that the petitioner was in occupation rather than tenant of respondent No.1.

Otherwise also, the learned Appellate Authority had returned a finding of fact that the petitioner was not a direct tenant in the premises of the respondent-landlord. The said finding of fact is based on evidence. It cannot be termed to be absurd or erroneous. This Court under sub-section (5) to Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act will not reappraise the evidence. Once it is held that the petitioner was not a tenant and he had set up his own title, inference of subletting are obvious because respondent No.2 never surrendered his rights of tenancy nor was it established that on the first date of hearing, entire arrears of rent were tendered. An order of eviction was rightly passed. Consequently, the revision petition must fail.

For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed. The petitioner is granted two months time to vacate the property.