Smt. Sudershan Kumari vs Anand Kumar Khemka and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlady''s revision petition in whose favour the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but was set aside in appeal.

According to the landlady, the premises, in dispute, were let out to M/s. Khemke Traders vide rent note dated December 14, 1963, Exhibit A-2, for a period of two months for parking car at the rate of Rs. 37 50 per month with effect from January 1, 1964. After the expiry of the said period of two months, M/s. Khemke Traders became the statutory tenants. Their ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the tenant has changed the user thereof as the same was let out for parking car whereas now it was being used as a godown, they had sublet it to Anand Kumar Khemka without her written consent and that they had committed such acts as were likely to impair its value and utility. In the written statement filed on behalf of Anand Kumar Khemka it was pleaded that the premises, in question, were previously owned by Surinder Kumar & Brothers and the firm Maman Chand Sham Sunder Lal was the tenant under the previous owners and was paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 32.50 per month. Later on, the premises were sold by the said owners to the landlady Sudarshan Kumari in the year 1963. The firm Maman Chand Sham Sunder Lal continued to be (he tenant under the landlady ac the same rent and Parshotam Kumar, the husband of the landlady, had been receiving rent from the said firm for the premises, in dispute. Later on, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 37.50 per month. The rent at the enhanced rate was paid by the said firm to the landlady. M/s. Khemka Traders never took the premises on rent and that it was never the tenant under the landlady. As a matter fact, there was no firm of the aforesaid name. In fact, the firm M/s. Maman Chand Sham Sunder Lal was the only tenant on the premises in dispute. All the other allegations made in the ejectment application were controverted. The learned Rent Controller negatived all the contentions raised on behalf of the landlady except the one relating to the change of user of the demised premises by the tenant without her written consent. According to the Rent Controller, the premises, in question, were let out vide rent note, Exhibit A-2 for parking car whereas the same were being used as a godown. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal before the Appellate Authority only the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of change of user of the demised premises was contested. The other findings recorded by the Rent Controller against the landlady were not challenged. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that, in fact, the tenant on the premises, in dispute, was the firm M/s. Maman Chand Sham Sunder Lal and that the said firm had been using the same as a godown. It was also held that the rent note, Exhibit A 2, was merely a paper transaction and was never acted upon. Under the circumstances, there was no change of user, as alleged. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed this revision petition in this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that having executed the rent note, Exhibit A-2, and admitting that the rent was enhanced from Rs. 32.50 to Rs. 37.50 per month, it could not be held that the firm M/s Maman Chand Sham Sunder Lal was the tenant and that the rent note was a mere paper transaction. According to the learned counsel, the purpose for letting out the premises was clearly mentioned in the rent note, Exhibit A-2, i.e., for parking the car whereas admittedly now, the premises were being used as a godown and, therefore, the findings of the Rent Controller in this behalf have been reversed in appeal on surmises and conjectures and arbitrarily.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

It is not disputed that the landlady purchased the demised premises in the year 1963. Earlier, the firm M/s. Maman Chand Sham Sunder Lal was the tenant under the original owners and was using the same as its godown. Anand Kumar Khemka, partner of Khemka Traders, who executed the rent note, Exhibit A-2, admitted his signatures thereon, but it was pleaded by him that the same was a mere paper transaction and was never acted upon. Besides, he was a partner of the firm M/s. Maman Chand Sham Sunder Lal as well and, therefore, it has been rightly held by both the authorities below that there was no question of any subletting. Once it is so found, then, it stands to reason that it was virtually M/s. Maman Chand Sham Sunder Lal who was the tenant and that it continued as such even after the execution of the rent note Exhibit A-2, by Anand Kumar Khemka on behalf of the firm Ms. Khemka Traders. The fact that the rent note was never given effect to, was admitted even by the landlady herself in her notice, Exhibit A-4, dated August 19, 1974, given by her through her Advocate. It was clearly stated therein that the premises were rented out to the firm M/s Khemka Traders, but they were never used by the said firm, as the said firm never came into existence and that the respondent had been occupying them illegally as a sub-allottee without the written consent of his client. That notice was given to Anand Kumar Khemka, a partner of M/s. Khemka Traders care of Maman Chand Sham Sunder, Bazar Kharadian, Ludhiana. Not only that, the eviction application was filed on November 14, 1974, i.e., after more than ten years of the execution of the rent note, Exhibit A-2. Even after the execution of the rent note, Exhibit A-2, the rent was paid by the firm M/s. Maman Chand Sham Sunder Lal and the receipts were issued by the husband of the landlady. One of the receipts is, Exhibit R-1, dated July 7, 1964. Parshotam Kumar, the husband of the landlady has admitted his signature thereon. The said receipt is on a printed form with the heading "MAMAN CHAND SHYAM SUNDER LAL". It is clearly mentioned therein: --

DEBIT Godown Rent A/c.

There are certain other receipts also to the same effect. They are marks A, B, C and D. However, the signatures on the said receipts were denied by Parshotam Kumar. In any case, the receipt, Exhibit R-1, further proves that in spite of the execution of the rent note, Exhibit A-2, the premises were being occupied by the firm M/s. Maman Chand Sham Sunder Lal who was the original tenant under the original owners and that the same were being used as a godown from the very beginning. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the findings of the Appellate Authority as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction.

Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.