Munshi Lal and Another vs Jagmohan Lal

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

Jagmohan Lal Sharma, landlord, sought the ejectment of his tenant from the premises in dispute, which consist of a shop and were leased out at the rate of Rs 50/- per mensum vide rent note dated 15.9.1949 to Munshi Lal and late Ram Lal son of Telu Ram. Later-on, at the instance of the tenant, fair rent was fixed at Rs. 16/50 paise per mensum on 19.2.1953. The said Ram Lal tenant died meanwhile and on his death, Munshi Lal alone was the tenant under the landlord in the premises in question. The eviction was sought inter alia on the ground that Munshi Lal had sublet the premises to Respondent No. 2 Ram Lal son of Wadhawa Mal of Messrs Ram Lal Gurmit Lal without the written consent of the landlord. It was further alleged that Ram Lal Respondent No. 2 was in exclusive possession of the premises in dispute.

The application was contested by Munshi Lal, as well as Ram Lal Respondent No. 2. Munshi Lal denied the allegations of the landlord, but admitted that the applicant was the landlord of the tenancy premises and the rent was Rs. 50/- per month. He illeged that the Respondents were the partner of M/s. Ram Lal Gurmit Lal since 1960. The rent was being paid by them. However, it was admitted that Munshi Lal and another Ram Lal son of Telu Ram had taken the shop in dispute on rent and on the death of Ram Lal, Munshi Lal took Respondent No. 2, i. e. Ram Lal son of Wadhawa Mal as his partner in the firm known as M/s Ram Lal Gurmit Lal (Gurmit Lal is the son of Munshi Lal). Thus, according to the tenant Munshi Lal, the Respondents have become tenants under the applicant. It was further stated that Munshi Lal retired from the said partnership firm in August, 1970 and the goodwill of the business had been retained by Respondent No. 2 Ram Lal and thus, he is now the sole tenant under the applicant-landlord. The learned rent Controller found that Respondent No. 2 was a sub-tenant under Respondent Munshi Lal and consequently passed the ejectment order against both of them. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus, Maintained the order of eviction passed in favour of the landlord. Dissatisfied with the same, both Munshi Lal and Ram Lal have filed this revision in this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that after Munshi Lal had retired from the partnership firm M/s. Ram Lal Gurmit Lal in August, 1970, Rani Lal had become the tenant in the premises in question, because earlier, the landlord has been accepting rent from the aforesaid partnership firm. According to the Learned Counsel, acceptance of rent from the above said firm clearly proves that Ram Lal was accepted as tenant by the landlord.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and going through the relevant documentary evidence, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this revision petition. Vide receipt Ex. P-6, rent was received by the landlord from M/s. Ram Lal Gurmit Lal, when, admittedly, Munshi Lal who was the tenant, was a partner of the said firm. Thus, acceptance of rent at that time was of no consequence. There is absolutely no evidence that Respondent No. 2 Ram Lal son of Wadhawa Lal was ever accepted as tenant by the landlord. Admittedly, after August, 1970, Munshi Lal is no more in occupation of the premises in dispute and it is Ram Lal who is in occupation of the entire shop. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity or impropriety in the concurrent findings of the two authorities below, as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the Petitioners are allowed two months time to vacate the premises, provided all the arrears of rent, if any, with advance rent for two months, are deposited with the Rent Controller within a fortnight.