Tek Chand and Another vs Keshav Dayal and Another

S.S. Sodhi, J.—No occasion is provided here to warrant interference in revision with the impugned order of the Appellate Authority upholding the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of subletting.

A reference to the record shows that the shop had been let out to the tenant Sahab Ram. The case of the landlord was that it had been sublet to Hans Raj, the brother of the tenant Sahab Ram. On behalf of the. tenant a partnership deed RW-3/1 was set up with a view to show that Sahab Ram and Hans Raj were in occupation of this shop and were doing business there together. It is the clear finding of both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that this partnership deed was not a genuine one. In dealing with this matter, it would be pertinent to note the statement of RW-6 Tek Chand the son of the tenant Sahab Ram deceased that he was an Income Tax payee but he had admitted that he had not shown any income from the business being run in the shop in his Income Tax return. What is more, no accounts of the partnership were produced by either Tek Chand or Hans Raj nor is there any documentary evidence to corroborate what purports to be the investment of Sahab Ram in the business being run in the shop under this partnership. The statement of Hans Raj, the brother of tenant Sahab Ram is also significant, namely, that no accounts of the partnership were being maintained, even though according to the partnership deed, regular accounts of the partnership business were required to be maintained. The partnership deed further provides that the accounts would be settled every year. No such statement of accounts is forthcoming.

Further, as per the copy of the form ''H'' under the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958, Ex.AW-1/1, the person running the shop under the Act is recorded there as Hans Raj and not the tenant Sahab Ram deceased.

Octroi and Tehbazari have also been shown to have been paid by Hans Raj and not Sahab Ram as would be evidence from Exs. AW.2/1 and AW.3/1.

Finally, reference must be made to the evidence on record to show that Sahib Ram and his son Tek Chand were running an oil mill separately since the last several years in some other premises. A Local Commissioner was appointed. The report of the Local Commissioner of November 3, 1972, would show that while Hans Raj alone was running the business at the shop, Tek Chand and his father Sahab Ram were doing business in the premises of the oil mill in the Old Anaz Mandi. No objections were filed against this report. Seen in the context, therefore, of the circumstances as narrated and the evidence as has been led, no exception can indeed be taken to the finding of subletting recorded against the tenant.

Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner tried to seek support from Jagan Nath Vs. Vasdev, and Smt. Maina Devi and Another Vs. Subhash Kohli and Others, . Both these judgments are clearly distinguishable on facts from the circumstances here. In Jagan Nath''s case (supra) it was held that there was no subletting where the tenant was found to be running business in the demised premises on behalf of his mother. There was no evidence there to show that he had parted with possession, rather, he was the person actually in possession running that business.

In Maina Devi''s case (supra) the, plea of the tenant was sought to be rejected on the ground of subletting was that he had entered into a partnership and was running the business in the demised premises under this partnership. The ground of subletting was negatived with the Court holding that (he partnership set up was genuine. To establish the genuineness of this partnership, the trading account and balance sheets for the last two years were produced and profit sharing was also established. Neither of these judicial precedents can, thus, be taken to advance the case of the petitioner.

Having regard, therefore, to the totality of the circumstances of the case in the context of the material on record, no exception can indeed be taken to the impugned order of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. Both these orders are accordingly upheld and affirmed and this Revision petition is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.