RASHPAL MALHOTRA Vs. VIRS SATYA RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the appellant claiming to be a tenant of the premises in question. There was an order of eviction under S. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Rent Act'). The respondent- landlady is the owner of House No. 722, Sector IIB, Chandigarh (hereinafter called 'the suit premises'). The suit premises was let out by a lease deed by respondent No. I to respondent No. 2 herein, Haryana Milk Food Corporation owned by the company for the residence of its General Manager at Chandigarh. It is stated in the said lease deed that the lease was for the use of Shri R. P. Malhotra who was at that time the General Manager of Haryana Milk Food Corporation. On behalf of the lessor the landlady, respondent herein has signed and on behalf of the lessee, it is signed as follows:

(2.) It is relevant to mention that the rent application was filed by the respondent making Haryana Milk Food Corporation as the first defendant and the appellant as the second defendant under S. 13 of the Rent Act. Respondent No. 2 Haryana Milk Food Corporation filed a written statement contending that Haryana Milk Food Corporation was just a trade name and not a legal entity, nor it was a partnership firm and the owner of the said concern was Kailash Chemical and Textile Mills Ltd. The same ground was taken by the appellant in the written statement filed by the appellant. Respondent No. 2 further contended that the appellant had been sending cheques and drafts for the payment of rent to the landlady which she had never accepted as none of the drafts sent by the appellant to the landlady had ever been encashed. Respondent No. 2 further contended that she had never accepted the appellant as the tenant from whom she had never accepted any rent. The landlady also filed an application for impleading the company as a party but unfortunately for unexplained reason the same was not proceeded with and withdrawn.

(3.) The trial Court raising issues, inter alia, held so far as relevant to the present purpose that Haryana Milk Food Corporation obtained the house for the appellant and the said concern was making payment of rent to respondent No. 1. The appellant and respondent No. 2 were liable to be ejected on the ground of arrears of rent. It was further held that the suit premises was required bona fide by respondent No. 1. In the premises on 5th of May, 1979 the trial Court ordered the ejectment of the appellant and respondent No. 2 from the suit premises. The judgment of the Appellate Court was passed on 5th of November, 1979 affirming the findings of the trial Court holding that the appellant took the premises on behalf of Haryana Milk Food Corporation. It was further held that Haryana Milk Food Corporation was the tenant under respondent No. 1. It was further held that the appellant and respondent No. 2 were held liable to be ejected on account of nonpayment of rent and in view of the aforesaid findings eviction was ordered from the suit premises. There was a further revision to the High Court and the High Court dismissed the appellant's revision petition affirming the reasoning of the Courts below.