SURAJBHAN Vs. PURAN SINGH ASWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, it transpires that the revisionist Surajbhan is the tenant, who has come up before this Court, challenging the judgment and order dated 11.02.2016 rendered by the First Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Small Causes Case No.01 of 2003, wherein the decree for eviction has been passed inter alia for the payment of rent and other charges.

(2.) The premise which has been agitated here against the respondent/plaintiff is that Mr. Puran Singh Aswal is not the real landlord and rather his brother Jagdish Aswal was the actual owner of the property. The Court outrightly rejects such submission in view of the elaborate reasons highlighted by the court below in paragraph nos.36 and 45 of the impugned judgment. Paragraph no.36 depicts the statement of revisionist Surajbhan himself, made in paragraph no.3 of his written statement filed in the suit, wherein he has pleaded that Puran Singh Aswal used to receive the rent from him but he did not pay the same, in turn, to the actual owner Jagdish Singh Aswal. This is somewhat unacceptable that when all the parties are living in a close vicinity of a small town, then the tenant Surajbhan would pay the rent of the questioned property to Mr. Puran Singh Aswal instead of paying it to its actual owner Mr. Jagdish Aswal. It is also evident that there are two shops located at the spot adjacent to each other (including the disputed one) and next to which, there is a common passage permitting entry of both brothers Mr. Puran Singh Aswal and Mr. Jagdish Chand Aswal to their respective residences.

(3.) Fortiori, the statement of Mr. Jagdish Chand Aswal, which has been reproduced in paragraph no.50 of the impugned judgment, shows that these two shops were constructed by Mr. Puran Singh earlier.