Ram Lal (Died) and Another vs Smt. Ashrafi Devi

G.C. Garg, J.—Applicant-Ashrafi Devi let out the godown in question to petitioner No. 1 -Ram Lal, now represented by his heirs, sometime in the year 1961. She sought his ejectment u/s 13 (2) (ii) (a) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, amongst others, on the ground that Ram Lal had sublet the godown to petitioner No. 2 Janta Iron and Steel Workers P.C.S. Cooperative Industrial Society Ltd. (for short the Society) without her written consent.

A joint written statement was filed by the tenant and the Society. It was admitted that the godown was let out to Ram Lal who was the manager of the Society and that the, said Society was in possession of the godown. It was also stated that the godown was hired for running the business of the Society and Ram Lal being the manager of the Society was carrying or the business and the overall control of the business was with him.

Learned Rent Controller after appreciating the entire evidence produced on record ordered ejectment of the tenant and the Society holding that Ram Lal had sublet the godown in question to the Society. On appeal, the finding as recorded by the learned Rent Controller was affirmed and consequently the appeal was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition has been filed by the tenant and the Society.

Mr. M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the godown was taken on rent by the Society through its manager Ram Lal. It was pointed out that the Society came into being in 1954 and ever since then Ram Lal has been its Manager and controlling all the activities in the godown in question. I find no merit in the contention. A bare reading of the rent note Exhibit P-1 written statement and the cross-examination of Ram Lal R.W.-1 clearly lead to the conclusion that the godown has been let out to Ram Lal in his individual capacity and not to the Society through Ram Lal as its manager. More over, it has been found that the Society is paying a rent of Rs. 100/- per month whereas the go-down was let out to Ram Lal at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/. It is not the case of the petitioners that the rent of the premises in question was enhanced at any point of the time after it was let out in the year 1961.

Learned counsel for the petitioners then contended that even if it was held that Ram Lal was inducted as a tenant in his individual capacity, the petitioners could not be ordered to be ejected as Ram Lal was in possession of the godown right from the inception of the tenancy as a manager of the Society and as also in his individual capacity. Ram Lal was also a member of the Society along with some other members of the family consisting of eleven share-holders. The possession of the Society would be deemed to be the possession of Ram Lal. Again, this contention is devoid of any merit. Ram Lal is only a manager of the Society and he draws salary at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. It is again admitted that the Society is paying Rs. 100/- per month on account of rent of the godown, obviously to Ram Lal as the rent has not been shown to have been paid to Asharafi Devi. It is thus, clear that the godown is in possession of the Society and it has been sublet by Ram Lal to the Society for consideration. The occupation of the godown cannot be termed as that of Ram Lal tenant only, simply because he is the manager of the Society of which he is a member and shareholder. The possession of Ram Lal is only on be half of the Society of which he is the manager. It was never the case of Ram Lal either in the written statement or during the course of evidence that the Society was only a licensee. All the members and shareholders of the Society have not even proved to be the members of the family of Ram Lal. In my view, it is a clear case where it is proved that Ram Lal has sublet the godown in question to the Society for consideration and no exception can be taken to concurrent finding recorded by the authorities below. In the written statement the possession of the godown was admitted to be that of the Society.

In view of the above discussion, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The tenant is, however, allowed three months time to vacate the premises in question provided all arrears of rent upto date are deposited in the trial Court within a period of three weeks from today.