Shri Banta Ram vs Amrit Kumar Kuthiala and others

S.D. Bajaj, J.—The sole surviving ground on which petitioner appellant (owner landlord) Banta Ram had claimed eviction of tenant-respondent No. 1 from the rented shop in ejectment petition No. 174-R filed on April 18, 1979, before the learned Rent Controller is the alleged sub-letting of the rented shop by respondent No. 1 to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 without the written consent of the landlord in terms of section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949.

Respondent-tenant vehemently controverted the allegation of subletting and urged in reply that respondent No. 2 was his father and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were his real brother, that all of the four of them had entered into a genuine partnership on September 11, 1978 which was duly registered and that the partnership business was being carried on in the rented shop in dispute ever since thereafter in the name and style of ''Bharat Cloth House. Before September 11, 1978 respondent tenant was admittedly carrying on his sole proprietorship business in the shop in dispute under the name and style of ''M/s Kharana Mal Bhagat Ram Kuthiala Cloth Hause.''

Allegation of sub-letting of the rented shop by tenant-respondent No. 1 to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was answered in the negative by the learned Rent Controller vide his assailed order of April 30 1981 and by the learned Appellate Authority in its assailed judgment of July, 19, 1983. Consequently, the ejectment petition moved by the petitioner-landlord against tenant-respondent No 1 and his alleged subtenant respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was dismissed. Hence Civil Revision No. 2869 of (sic).

I have heard Mr. Gurdial Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sarwan Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent and have carefully gone through the entire record of the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller.

Learned counsel for the petitioner read before me the statement of tenant-respondent No. 1 Amrit Kumar R.W. 7 and urged (i) that the name & style of business run at the rented shop in dispute had been changed; (ii) that the share of original tenant-respondent No. 1 was only 20 paise in a rupee even though the tenancy of the shop was in his name and he had contributed furniture worth Rs. 5200/- as share capital in the new partnership business besides his own capital of Rs. 1000/-contributed by all the four partners including him individually; and (iii) that the meagre share of profits earned by the tenant-respondent No. 1 of Rs. 2000/in 1978-79 and Rs. 2800/-, Rs. 2900/- in 1979-80 were, in fact, increments earned through sub-letting which could hardly be sufficient otherwise to maintain a family of 7 members of tenant-respondent No. 1. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner all these three factors taken together lead to the only conclusion of creation of sub tenancy of the rented shop by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

The argument is wholly bereft of any merit. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced before him, learned Rent Controller in his assailed order of April 30, 1981 returned a categorical finding under issue No. 1 that tenant-respondent No. 1 had not sub-let the rented shop in dispute to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 This finding of fact returned by the learned Rent Controller was duly affirmed by the learned. Appellate Authority in its assailed judgment of July 19, 1983. Concurrent finding of fact returned by the two competent authorities below is conclusive and cannot be tinkered with by this Court in the present revision petition. Ganga Bishnu Swaika and another v. Calcutta v. Pinjrapole Society and others A.I. R. 1968 S.C. 615 and Goppulal Vs. Thakurji Shriji Shriji Dwarakadheeshji and Another, , are both authorities for the view that the concurrent finding of fact aforesaid returned by the learned two competent authorities below is conclusive and binding on this Court.

In result the revision petition filed by the owner-landlord fails and is dismissed with costs.