Sh. Ghisa Ram Gupta vs Smt. Meeran Devi and Another

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This is landlord''s revision petition directed against the orders of the Courts below, whereby ejectment petition filed by the landlord was dismissed.

In brief, the facts are that Ghisa Ram (petitioner herein) claiming himself to be owner of the property, filed an ejectment Petition against his daughter-in-law, Meeran Devi (respondent No. 1 herein) and Tarsem Lal (respondent No. 2, herein), alleging therein that complete house including a shop now in possession of respondent No2, was let out to respondent No. 1 vide rent-note dated 5.1.1981 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month, but thereafter, respondent No. 1 sublet the shop to respondent No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month under rent-note dated 1-6-83, executed in favour of respondent No. 1. Ejectment was sought on the ground of sub-letting. Respondent No. 1 admitted the claim of her father-in-law, whereas respondent No. 2 contested the petition on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 further averred in his written statement that at the time the tenancy was created, a rent note was executed in favour of respondent No. 1 in the presence of the petitioner, and from that date, he had been paying the rent to respondent No. 1. The Rent Controller on the appreciation of evidence on record, found that rent-note dated 5-1-1981, i.e. between petitioner and respondent No. 1 is a fake document and was created only for the purpose of seeking ejectment of respondent No. 2. Consequently, the ejectment petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller. On appeal by the petitioner, the finding of the Rent Controller was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Petitioner has now impugned the orders of both the Courts below by way of present revision petition.

Mr. S.P. Jain, counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contented that though respondent No. 2 executed a rent-note in favour of respondent No. 1 in the presence of the petitioner, yet respondent No. 2 has not explained as to why he did not execute the rent-note in favour of the petitioner and why the rent was not paid to him when he know that Ghisa Ram, petitioner, was the owner. He further contended that no receipt has been brought on record to show that respondent No. 2 ever paid the rent to the petitioner and, thus respondent No. 2 cannot be held to be a direct tenant under the petitioner.

In reply, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that there is no sub-letting and the finding of the Courts below being a concurrent findings of fact, calls for no interference by this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. Petitioner in his ejectment petition, claimed respondent No. 1 to be tenant, on the basis of rent-note dated 5-1-1981. In order to prove the said rent-note, one Sheo Chand, an attesting witness to that rent-note, was examined. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate Authority had disbelieved the said witness, and held that the rent-note by respondent No. 1 in favour of the petitioner is a fake document. Learned counsel, for the petitioner has not been able to point out any other evidence which would show that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. The only relationship with respondent No1, the petitioner has been able to establish is that of father-in-law. Respondent No. 2 is liable to ejected only if the petitioner can establish on record that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between him and respondent No. 1, who in turn sublet the premises to respondent No. 2. This of course, he has failed to establish by any clinching or cogence evidence. It has also come on record that during the pendency of this very ejectment petition, respondent No. 1 had filed as many as three ejectment petitions against respondent No. 2 for claiming rent. In all those proceedings, the rent was tendered on the first date of hearing. So much so, in one petition, i.e. ejectment petition No. 56/85, on the first date of hearing, when the rent was to be tendered, it was pointed out by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner and husband of respondent No. 1 are present in the Court along with respondent No. 1. This was explained by the counsel for respondent No. 1 by stating that they had come to the Court in connection with some other case. This is apparent from R-3, statement made by the counsel in that case. Thus, from the aforesaid circumstances, it is quite clear that the rent-note, set up by the petitioner, alleged to have been executed in his favour by his daughter-in law is nothing, but a camouflage. The judgments rendered in Rajiv Paul Singh v. Mehanga Ram 1984 (1) R.C.R. 329 Prem Kumar Aggarwal v. Yash Paul (1985) 87 P.L.R. 525 and Bhalle Singh Subhash Chand v. Ravi Datt (1985) 87 P.L.R. 562 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, have no application to the facts of the present case. In these cases, the sub-tenant had claimed himself to be direct tenant and having failed to establish tenancy, was ordered to be ejected on the ground of sub-letting. In the present case, as already noticed, this is not the case. The petitioner having failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, is not entitled to succeed and, therefore, findings of the Courts below call for no interference.

Faced with this situation, Mr. Jain, counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Courts below ought to have passed an order of ejectment against respondent No. 1, from the house in her possession as she had admitted the grounds of ejectment. I am not prepared to accept this contention also. The ejectment was sought only on the ground of sub-letting and no other ground. Since the petitioner has failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant, he cannot succeed even against respondent No. 1.

For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 1000/-