Ram Kishan vs Harjinder Singh and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This revision petition filed by Ram Kishan, tenant-petitioner, against the order of the Appellate Authority, dated February J 5, 1980, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, dated December 23, 1978, directing his ejectment was maintained.

Pritam Singh landlord, (now deceased) filed an application for ejectment of his tenants, Amar Singh and others, (the heirs and the legal representatives of Gurdial Singh the original tenant) and Ram Kishan, tenant-petitioner, alleging him to be the sub-tenant under Gurdial Singh, deceased According to the landlord, the premises, in dispute, were leased out to Gurdial Singh on a monthly rent of Rs. 2/- vide rent note, Exhibit A. 1, dated September 2, 1963. The said Gurdial Singh sub-let the premises, in dispute, to Ram Kishan petitioner, who was in exclusive possession thereof and thereafter he was paying rent to the said Gurdial Singh. Gurdial Singh died in the year 1970. The ejectment application was filed on June 14, 1977. In the written statement, filed on behalf of the heirs and the legal representatives of Gurdial Singh, the claim of the landlord was admitted. However, the eviction application was contested on behalf of Ram Kishan, petitioner. It is pleaded by him that the eviction application had been filed by the landlord in colusion with the respondents who were the heirs and the legal representatives of Gurdial Singh, deceased, who was very close to the landlord. He (Gurdial Singh) was a Munim and was working with Panna Lal who was related to the landlord. He never did any work except munim during his whole life and he never occupied the shop, in dispute. The heirs and the legal representatives of Amar Singh were in collusion with the landlord and that false petition had been filed to affect his rights adversely. The son of the landlord was working in the adjoining shop since long and the landlord and his family members were residing in the chaubaras of the demised property. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller :--

Whether Gurdial Singh, deceased, was the tenant on the premises, in question ?

Whether Gurdial Singh sub-let the shop, in dispute, to Ram Kishan, respondent No. 9, as alleged ?

Relief.

Both the issues were consolidated by the Rent Controller and it was held that the demised premises were leased out by Pritam Singh, deceased, to Gurdial Singh deceased who sublet the same to Ram Kishan, petitioner, on April 14, 1964, vide rent note Exhibit A 2. As a result of this finding, the order of ejectment was passed. In appeal, these findings were maintained by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved against the same, Ram Kishan, tenant, has come up in revision to this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that Gurdial Singh, the alleged tenant, had died in the year 1977 and it has been admitted by the landlord that since then, no rent has been paid to him by his heirs and the legal representatives, but even then, the landlord has not claimed any arrears of rent in the present ejectment which was filed on June 14, 1977. According to the Learned Counsel, this clearly proves that the landlord was in collusion with Amar Singh and others, the heirs and the legal representatives of Gurdial Singh, deceased, to eject the petitioner from the premises, in dispute, otherwise Gurdial Singh was never the tenant, on the demised premises and it was the petitioner who has been in occupation thereof since 1963 and has been regularly paying the rent to Pritam Singh, landlord. It has been further contended that the landlord owns three shops and two godowns in Faridkot and the landlord himself was residing on the first floor of the premises, in dispute, but he never claimed the ejectment of the petitioner earlier either on the basis of the non-payment of the rent or on the ground of the alleged sub-letting by Gurdial Singh. Under the circumstances, according to the Learned Counsel, it is highly in probable that the landlord could keep silence for more than 13 years and would not take any action against his tenant for claiming the arrears of rent. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the respondents commended that both the authorities below on the basis of the rent note, Exhibit A/1, dated September 2, 1963, executed by Gurdial Singh, deceased, in favour of Pritam Singh, deceased, landlord, and the rent note Exhibit A/2, dated June 14, 1964, Exhibit A/2, executed by Ram Kishan, petitioner, in favour of Gurdial Singh, have concurrently found that Gurdial Singh, deceased, was the original tenant on the demised premises who sublet the same to Ram Kishan, petitioner, vide rent note dated April 14, 1964, Exhibit A/2, and, therefore, on account of the sub-letting, the landlord was entitled to an order of eviction and that the said finding of fact was not open to interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record, particularly the rent note Exhibits A/1 and A/2. The question of sub-letting will arise only if Gurdial Singh, deceased, could be held to be the tenant under Pritam Singh, deceased, landlord. Thus, the main question to be decided in this case is whether Gurdial Singh who died in the year 1970, was the tenant under Pritam Singh deceased, landlord, or not ?

Section 2(i) of the East Panjnb Urban Rent Restriction Act, defines the term "tenant", as follows :--

''tenant'' means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building or rented land by its tenant, unless with the consent, in writing, of the landlord, or a person to whom the collection of rent or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter-house or of rents for shops has been framed out or leased by a municipal, town or notified area committee.

It is strange that there is no allegation in the ejectment application that Gurdial Singh, deceased, was liable to pay the rent or he ever paid any rent to Pritam Singh, landlord, particularly when it is admitted by the landlord himself in his statement as A.W. 1, that since 1970, no rent has been paid on behalf of Gurdial Singh by his heirs and the legal representatives. It is all the more intriguing that no arrears of rent were claimed in the present ejectment application either. In the written statement filed on behalf of the heirs and the legal representatives of Gurdial Singh, deceased, they not only admitted the claim of the landlord, but also stated that the petitioner had not paid any rent to them in spite of a registered notice issued to him. It is, thus, clear that according to the landlord and the heirs and the legal representatives of the so-called tenant Gurdial Singh, no rent was even paid to them by Ram Kishan, petitioner, but it has not been explained on behalf of the landlord why the arrears of rent were not claimed by him in the present ejectment application. According to the definition of the tenant, as reproduced above, any person by whom or on whose behalf the rent is payable for a building or a tented land, will fall within the definition of the tenant. Unless a person is liable to pay the rent he cannot be held to be a tenant, as contemplated u/s 2(i) of the afore-said Act. In order to hold that Gurdial Singh was tenant under the landlord, the latter must prove that the rent was payable by the former or on his account. There is no cogent evidence on the record to prove that Gurdial Singh ever paid any rent to Pritam Singh, landlord prior to 1970, when he died, though admittedly no rent was paid by his heirs and the legal representatives, to the landlord. Under the circumstances, the execution of the rent note, Exhibit A/1, dated September 2, 1963 by Gurdial Singh, deceased, is of no consequence. It is also strange that the rent note, Exhibit A. 2, dated September 14, 1964, is said to have been executed by Ram Kishan, petitioner, in favour of Gurdial Singh, deceased. It is true that Ram Kishan has admitted his signatures on the said rent note, but he has also stated that his signatures were obtained on a blank paper. Be that as it nay, ordinarily no sub-tenant will execute a rent note in favour of a person who is a tenant on the premises, Generally, it is a secret arrangement between the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant and that is why, the onus is always on the tenant to prove as to in what capacity the alleged sub-tenant was in the alleged occupation of the premises. It has also been revealed from the record that the rent note, Exhibit A. 2. was produced by a lawyer, Shri D.K. Bedi, R.W. 7, who claimed to be an Advocate of the heirs of Gurdial Singh, deceased, and had also issued the notice, Exhibit R/l, dated January 13, 1976, to Ram Kishan, petitioner. In that notice, it has been stated that Ram Kishan, petitioner, had failed to pay the rent from May 9, 1964. This further proves that Ram Kishan, petitioner, never paid any rent either to Gurdial Singh, deceased, or to his heirs and the legal representatives. Certified copies of the house tax assessment register, Exhibit R. 1, R. 2, R. 3 and R. 4 relating to the assessment years 1971, 1072, 1973 and April 1, 1974 to March 31, 1976, respectively, from the Municipal Committee, Faridkot, have been brought on the record wherein Ram Kishan, petitioner, has been shown to be in occupation of the premises, in dispute.

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case, 1 am of the considered opinion that it is a clear case where both the rent notes, exhibits A/1 and A/2, are mere sham transactions which seem to have been manipulated by the landlord to be used at a later stage. There is evidence on the record to the effect that the mother of Ram Kishan, petitioner, who appeared as R.W. 2, was working in the house of Pritam Singh landlord, as a domestic servant. It was at her instance that Pritam Singh, landlord, had agreed to rent out the shop, in dispute, to her son Ram Kishan, petitioner. It appears that, taking advantage of the humble station of Ram Kishan, petitioner in life, the landlord manipulated the rent note, Exhibit A/2, otherwise to all intents and purposes, the rent note, Exhibit A/1, nor the rent note, Exhibit A/2, were operative at any time as is clear from the evidence, referred to above. The whole approach of the Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller was illegal and improper in coming to the conclusion that the sub-letting was approved in the present case. From the very beginning, Ram Kishan, petitioner, has been tenant on the property, in dispute, and he was never the tenant under Gurdial Singh, deceased, as alleged and claimed by Pritam Singh, landlord (deceased).

For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and the application for ejectment filed by Pritam Singh, landlord, for the ejectment of Ram Kishan, petitioner, is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 300/-.