MAHARAJ KISHAN Vs. JANENDRA KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court, Delhi, accepting the revision under Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (XXXVIII of 1952) here with referred to as the Act, filed by Janendra Kumar Jain, respondent before us, hereinafter called defendant No. 8. By this judgment the High Court set aside the concur rent findings of fact given by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, and the learned Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi, that the All India Jain Digamber Parishad hereinafter referred to as the Parishad had sublet or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises, Rishi Bhawan, let out to it in May 1944 by Maharaj Krishan, appellant before us & hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff.

(2.) The main complaint of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the High Court was not right in holding that the courts below had misread the evidence in the case, and it had exceeded its powers under Section 35 of the Act.

(3.) The relevant facts may briefly be stated. Maharaj Krishan brought a suit on July 8, 1957, against the members of the said Parishad (defendants Nos. 1-7)-- respondent Nos. 2-8 in the present appeal and Janendra Kumar Jain, defendant No. 8 respondent No. 1 in this appeal for a decree for ejectment against the respondents as well as for the recovery of arrears of rent on a number of grounds, one ground being that the Parishad had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises in dispute in favour of defendant No. 8 without the permission of the plaintiff. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 & 6---respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 did not appear and contest the suit, but defendants Nos. 5, 7 and 8--respondents Nos. 1, 6 to 8--resisted the claim of the plaintiff. They filed a joint written statement and defendant No. 8 also filed a separate written statement. Defendant No. 8 admitted that the Parishad was the tenant of the plaintiff but denied that the premises were let out to the Parishad for the residence of its Secretary. It was further stated that "the paper VIR is published on behalf of All India Jain Digamber Parishad. This defendant is President of VIR Editorial Board and chief Adviser of VIR. Defendant No. 8 is having his office in that capacity in that building The Parishad is holding the office of the VIR in the premises in dispute since the time it was let out to them." It was denied that defendant No. 8 was a sub-tenant of the Parishad or that he had been in occupation of the premises in that capacity.