Ram Prakash and Another vs Labhu Ram

J.V. Gupta, J.—Tenant Makhan Lal and Ram Parkash, petitioners have filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, dated December 8, 1976, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, dismissing the ejectment application was set aside and the order of the ejectment was passed against the petitioners.

Labhu Ram, landlord-respondent, filed ejectment application against the petitioners, for eviction from the premises, in dispute, which consisted of a shop, on the allegations that the tenant had sub-let the same to Ram Parkash, petitioner, without his written consent or permission. The other grounds taken by him are not relevant for the purpose of this petition and the same need not be mentioned In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant-petitioner, Makhan Lal, it was pleaded that Ram Parkash petitioner, was a partner with him in addition to one Krishan Lal. Under these circumstances, the question of sub-letting the demised premises did not arise and the ejectment application was liable to be dismissed on this ground. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues.

Whether the respondents are liable to ejectment on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 4 of the petition?

Whether any notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was required to be given? If so, whether any legal and valid notice was served on the respondent?

Relief.

The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application and came to the conclusion that the sub-letting of the premises in dispute, by the tenant, as alleged by the landlord-respondent, was not proved. Makhan Lal, tenant-petitioner and Ram Parkash, petitioner, were running partnership business in the shop, in dispute, and Exhibit R. 5, was the deed of partnership executed between the parties. Reliance was also placed on the statement of Shri K.D. Vig, RW 5, Income Tax Officer, who stated that this firm was registered with the Income Tax Department. For the assessment year 1971-72, the status of the firm was that of an unregistered firm. On appeal, this finding of the Rent Controller has been reversed by the Appellate Authority. It took the view that the statement of accounts and the partnership deed, relied upon by the Rent Controller, were not proved in a proper way. Consequently, the order of ejectment was passed against the petitioners, on the ground of subletting. Feeling aggrieved against the same, they have come up in revision to this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the technical rules of evidence as such do not apply to the proceedings under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on Dwarka Das v. Shrimati Ramlubhai (1969)71 P.L.R. 68. It was also contended that it was amply proved on the record that the tenant, Makhan Lal, was running his business in partnership with Ram Parkash and one Krishan Lal. A copy of the partnership deed was Exhibit R. 5, dated August 10, 1970. On the basis of partnership deed, it was further contended that the firm was registered with the Registrar of Firms vide Exhibit R. 7, dated February 22, 1973, as well as with the income tax Department, and as a result, the said firm was assessed as a registered firm. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that the Appellate Authority has given a firm finding that the alleged partnership deed of 1970 was got registered only in February, 1973. as is apparent from the copies of Form A, Exhibit R. 6, and Form C, Exhibit R. 7, and therefore, there was no bona fide partnership as alleged by the tenant, between him and Ram Parkash, petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, at a great length and have also gone through the evidence on the record, I am of the considered view that the whole approach of the Appellate Authority was wrong and illegal and thus, the finding given by it is vitiated.

The Appellate Authority has wrongly held that the documents produced by the tenant and the partnership deed were not proved in a proper way. The learned counsel for the respondent, was unable to point out as to how the said documents, that is, the statement of accounts and the partnership deed were not proved in a proper way as held by the Appellate Authority Moreover, no such objection was taken before the Rent Controller when the said documents were produced in evidence and duly exhibited. The mere fact that the application for registration of firm with the Registrar of Firms was made on February 22, 1973 whereas the petition for ejectment was filed on December 23, 1972, was of no consequence. It is not necessary under the law that a firm must be registered with the Registrar of Firms immediately after the partnership comes into existence. Once the partnership deed, dated August 10, 1970, is held to be a genuine document, then any delayed registration will not invalidate the same. According to the said partnership deed, Makhan Lal, tenant, had 20 percent, Ram Parkash 60 percent, and Kishan Lal 20 percent shares in the said firm. There is nothing to show that this partnership was fake or inoperative. The Rent Controller, after discussing the whole evidence on the record, has given a firm finding that it is clear from the statement of Shri K.D. Vig R.W. 5, income tax Officer, that the firm had submitted returns to the income tax Officer as a partnership firm. The copies of form A, Exhibit R. 6 and form C, Exhibit R. 7, prove that the firm is registered under the Indian Partnership Act, and both the petitioners are partners of the same. The balance sheets of firm, Exhibit R. 1 to R. 4, prove that the firm is runing as such and regular accounts of the same are being maintained. In these circumstances, there seems to be no escape from the conclusion that Makhan Lal, tenant and Ram Parkash, petitioner, are partners of the firm which is carrying on business in the demised premises. The premises, in dispute, were originally taken on rent by Makhan Lal, tenant-petitioner. He only added Ram Parkash, petitioner, as a partner with him and has, thus, not completely parted with the possession of the property in dispute, in favour of Ram Parkash, petitioner. It is not disputed that if the partnership is held to be genuine, then the question of sub-letting as alleged by the landlord-respondent, will not arise. Since the Appellate Authority has failed to consider all the material documentary evidence on the record and has brushed aside the same only on the ground that the same was not duly proved in a proper way, the finding arrived by it is, thus vitiated, as it has misdirected itself on this point. It has been rightly held in Dwarka Das''s case (supra) that the proceedings before the Rent Controller are of a summary nature and the Indian Evidence Act, as such is not applicable to those proceedings

For the reasons recorded above, this petition succeeds. The order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application is restored with costs.