M/s. Bhalle Singh Subhash Chand vs Ravi Datt and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

The landlord, Ravi Dutt, sought the ejectment of the tenant Harish Chander on the ground that he had sublet the demised premises (rented land) to M/s. Bhalle Singh Subhash Chand, the Petitioner, Matu Ram, Sant Lal and Ram Kishan, Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in the eviction application. The application was filed on March 27,1968. It was also alleged therein that the tenant was also in arrears of rent from January 1, 1967. Tenant Harish Chander filed the written statement and pleaded therein that he took on rent the portions marked A,B,C and D and B.C.E. and F in the plan vide rent not dated October 6,1955, Exhibit P-l. At that time, the business was started in the firm name Harish Chander Kuldip Singh. Thereafter, the partners and the name of the said firm changed more than once and the applicant had been recognising them, without reservation, as tenants, Harish Chand withdrew from the partnership of the firm on April 1, J965. After that, Bhalle Ram, Mangal Ram and Subhash Chand become its partners and the firm was given the name, Hari Chander Subhash Chander. The applicant continued recognising them as the tenants and receiving rent. He left the tenancy with effect from April 1, 1965 and had no concern with the premises thereafter. M/s Bhalle Singh Subhash Chand, Petitioner, which was Respondent No. 2 in the eviction application, denied to have taken the premises on rent through Harish Chander, Respondent, and stated that they were the direct tenants under the landlord. According to them, there was no subletting as alleged. He had been recognising each firm which carried out business in the demised premises as his tenant and continued receiving rent from it Matu Ram, Respondent, was a tenant and not a sub-lessee. He worked on hire on the motor and the ara installed by the Petitioner and gave it Rs. l,800/- per annum. Harish Chander was not a tenant on the demised premises since April 1, 1965. On the other hand, M/s, Bhalle Singh Subhash Chand was the tenant, whom the landlord had accepted as such and had also received rent vide receipts, Exhibits R-l to R-3. The Rent Controller found that from the evidence on the record, it was amply proved that Harish Chander was no more in occupation of the demised premises and that he had sublet the same to Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in the eviction application. It was also found that since Harish Chander, tenant, had not tendered or paid the rent after January 1, 1967, he was liable to be ejected from the premises on that ground also. On the question of relationship between landlord and the Petitioner, it was held that the latter had failed to prove that it was a direct tenant under the former or that it was ever accepted to be the tenant on the demised premises by the former. In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order Dissatisfied with the same the Petitioner has come up in revision to this Court

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that though originally Harish Chander was the tenant as evidenced vide rent note dated October 6, 1955, Exhibit P-l, yet, later on, when he joined others as the partners with him, the landlord accepted the firm as the tenant, and, therefore, the question of subletting as such did ret arise. According to the Learned Counsel, when in the year 1964, the firm, M/s Bhalle Singh Subhash Chand came into existence though Harish Chander, tenant, was no more its partner yet the other partners of the earlier firm were there and, therefore, the firm being the tenant, the partners could continue the business in the name of another firm. The question of subletting did not arise. The landlord accepted the rent from the Petitioner and duly signed the entries in the account books, the copies of which are, Exhibits R-1 to R-3 According to the Learned Counsel, the acceptance of the rent by the landlord from the said firm was itself sufficient to prove that they had been accepted as tenants on the demised premises. In support of the contention, the Learned Counsel relied upon Amar Nath v. Mehman Wanti 1973 R.C.R. 607. On the other band, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that it has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that at the time when the rent was accepted by the landlord, the name of the firm. M/s Bhalle Singh Subhash Chander was not there in the account books and as such, he never accepted the rent from the said firm. Exhibits R-1 to R-3 only prove that he accepted rent, but not from the said firm and, therefore, the acceptance of the rent, by itself, was not sufficient to prove that the Petitioner was accepted to be the tenant on the demised premises. In support of the contention, the Learned Counsel relied upon Sheodhari Rai and Others Vs. Suraj Prasad Singh and Others, .

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

On the appreciation of the entire evidence it has been concurrently found that Harish Chander was the original tenant in his individual capacity on the demised premises and that the landlord never accepted any of the firms there as tenants under him. It has been further found as a fact from the statement of Rajender Parshad. A.W-4, who used to maintain the accounts of the Petitioner that he did not write the name of the firm Bhalle Singh Subhash Chand on the cover of the bahi in his own hand at the time when Pavi Dutt signed the entries, Exhibits R-1 to R-3. On the basis of this evidence, it was concluded by the Appellate Authority that under the circumstances, the plea of the Petitioner firm cannot be admitted that the landlord having given receipts on account of rent in the babis of the firm had admitted it to be the tenant. This is a finding of fact, based on the appreciation of the evidence on the record and I do not find any impropriety or illegality therein as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. Admittedly, Harish Chander is no more in occupation of the demised premises and they are in occupation of the Petitioner. Since the landlord never accepted the Petitioner as his tenant, it is a clear case of subletting by Harish Chander and the landlord was entitled to the eviction order which has been rightly passed by both the authorities below. As a matter of fact, from the conduct of the Petitioner, it appears that the receipts, Exhibits R-1 to R-3, were obtained by it without disclosing that the rent was being paid by it as a tenant. Moreover, in the receipt, there is do mention of the Petitioner at all. The entry is only to the effect that a sun of Rs. 2,000/- was paid to Ravi Dutta as rent for four months From this entry, by no stretch of imagination, it could be held that the Petitioner was accepted to be the tenant on the demised premises by the landlord. Besides, it came into existence in the year 1964. Except the two entries in the year 1966, there are no other entries to show that prior there to, rent was being paid by the Petitioner. It also goes a long way in proving the manner in which the said two entries were secured by the Petitioner.

Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. 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, are deposited with the Rent Controller concerned within one month from today and also an undertaking, in writing, that on the expiry of the said period of three months, the premises shall be vacated and the vacant possession thereof would be handed over to the landlord.

During the pendency of this revision petition. Civil Miscellaneous Application No 3537 CII of 1983, for seeking permission to place on record the additional documents was moved on behalf of the Petitioner. The same was ordered to be beared alongwith the main case Reply to the said application was filed on behalf of the landlord. In view of the said reply, the civil miscellaneous application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.