Nam Adhar Jolota vs Ramesh Chand and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

The landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises which were rented out to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-with effect from January 1,1958. His ejectment therefrom was sought inter alia on the grounds of the subletting thereof to respondent Nos. 2 to 5, and the same being used by him for the purpose other than the one for which they were leased out to him. According to the landlord, the premises being residential one, were given on rent for residence whereas they were being used for business purposes. Ramesh Chand, tenant, did not contest, the ejectment application. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, contested it. It was maintained by them that it was the firm known as Jain Bodh Hosiery which was the tenant under the landlord and not Ramesh Chand, respondent, in his individual capacity. It was also pleaded that the firm, Jain Bodh Hosiery took the premises on rent at the rate of Rs. 45/-per month on April 1, 1955. At that time Shadi Lal, Ramesh Chand and Nagin Chand were the partners of the said firm. The landlord had been realising the rent thereof some times in cash and some times by cheques from the firms and issued receipts in this behalf. It was further pleaded that the premises were let out for carrying on the hosiery work since the year 1955 and that the firm was in occupation thereof since then. The learned Rent Controller found that the premises were let out to Jain Bodh Hosiery a partnership firm and not to Ramesh Chand, respondent, in his individual capacity. It was also found that the premises were not let out for residential purposes and, therefore, the question of change of user thereof did not arise. The other pleas raised on behalf of the landlord were also negatived. In view of these findings, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

3 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the rent note, Exhibit P-1, dated December 16, 1957, it was quite evident that the demised premises were given on rent to Ramesh Chand, respondent in his individual capacity and that too for residential purposes. According to the learned counsel, the findings of the authorities below that the premises were let out to the firm Jain Bodh Hosiery, were wrong and and illegal. According to the learned counsel, the rent note, Exhibit P-1, has been misconstrued. Besides, the premises were let out for residential purposes and now, admittedly, the same were being used for business purposes which was a clear cut case of the change of user thereof.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the rent note, Exhibit P-1, and the relevant evidence on the record.

It is true that the rent note, Exhibit P-1, was executed by Ramesh Chand, respondent, who was one of the partners of the firm, Jain Bodh Hosiery, Ludhiana. It is also true that the stamp-paper was purchased in the name of the firm, Jain Bodh Hosiery, Ludhiana. No specific purpose as such is mentioned in the rent note for which the demised premises were let out, though the same are described as a makan and given for the occupation of Ramesh Chand, respondent. The matter would have been different, if this rent note was the only evidence to prove the tenancy in favour of Ramesh Chand, respondent. There are certain receipts, produced on behalf of the tenant, showing that the rent was being paid throughout by the firm, Jain Bodh Hosiery. Not only that, in certain receipts, such as, Exhibits R-3, R-5, R-6 and R-23, the demised premises were mentioned as "shop". If the rent note, Exhibit P-1, is read with the said receipts, which evidence the payment of the rent by the firm and wherein the premises are described as a "shop", then it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the petitioner that they were let out to Ramesh Chand, respondent in his individual capacity. He was admittedly one of the partners of the firm at that time. It is in the evidence of Ramesh Chand, respondent, himself, who was produced by the landlord as P. W.-2, that he was a partner of the firm Jain Bodh Hosiery, which was dissolved about twelve or thirteen years ago. His statement as P.W.-2 was recorded on August 23, 1973. It means that he ceased to be a partner of the said firm somewhere in the year 1960. From the receipts produced on the record, i.e., from Exhibit R-1 to R-23, it is evident that the landlord had been accepting the rent from the firm Jain Bodh Hosiery, for the demised premises, even after Ramesh Chand, respondent, ceased to be a partner thereof, Thus, from the documentary evidence on the record, it has been proved that the premises were given on rent to the firm, Jain Bodh Hosiery, Ludhiana, and that too for commercial purposes. There is no evidence on the record to prove that Ramesh Chand, respondent, who executed the rent note, Exhibit P-1, ever occupied the demised premises, for his residence. From the very inception of the tenancy, the premises are being used for commercial purposes. Under the circumstances, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the petitioner that the premises, in question had been sublet by Ramesh Chand, respondent, to respondents Nos. 2 to 5. In view of this finding, the other question, in regard to the change of user of the demised premises by the respondent does not arise because from the very inception of the tenancy, they are being used for commercial purposes. Apart from the above, both the authorities below have discussed the entire evidence and have negatived the pleas of the landlord. I do not find any illegality or infirmity therein as to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.

Lastly, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in any case, the premises were residential one and, therefore, in view of section 11 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the same could not be converted into a non-residential building. No such plea was taken on behalf of the petitioner at any stage earlier and it being a question of fact could not be allowed to be raised for the first time at this stage.

In this view of the matter, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.