DEEP CHAND Vs. SUNDER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and decree dated 5.9.1997 passed by the trial court in S.C.C. Suit No. 79 of 1985 and the judgment and order dated 31.7.2000 passed by the revisional court in S.C.C. Revision No. 62 of 1997.

(2.) Relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that Shri Sunder Lal, respondent No. 1 filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the petitioner Shri Deep Chand, pleading that the building in dispute was let out to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 at a monthly rent of Rs. 90 who have defaulted in payment of rent for 33 months. A notice of demand and termination of tenancy was served upon them on 22.7.1984 but they failed to pay the rent. On the other hand, they have sub-lei the premises in question to the petitioner without the consent of the respondent and started realising Rs. 375 per month as rent from the petitioner, hence the suit for the above mentioned reliefs. By means of amendment, plea of material alternation, diminishing the value of the building in question was also taken. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed their written statement admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant denying the rent of the allegations. It was also pleaded that the petitioner was permitted to manage their business of Ice-Candy who committed irregularities in accounts. On the other hand, petitioner also filed a written statement pleading that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were acting in collusion with respondent No. 1. He claimed that he was the tenant of the premises in dispute in his own right and had been carrying Ice-Candy business in the name of Parle Ice-Candy. He, with the consent of plaintiff respondent, carried out renovation of the premises in dispute, in which substantial amount was spent which was liable to be adjusted in the future rent. The suit as framed and filed was legally not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed,

(3.) Trial court on the basis of pleading of the parties, framed issues. Issue No. 1 related to structural alternations diminishing the value of the building in question, issue No. 2 related to sub-letting to defendant-petitioner ; Issue No. 3 related to the validity of notice ; Issue No. 4 to related to the default in payment of rent and Issue No. 5 to the relief. The trial court held that the petitioner was the sub-tenant of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the building in question. While dealing with Issue No. 1, it was held that although, alternations in the building in question were made but by the same, the value of the building was not diminished, the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was held valid and tt was also held that it was not necessary to give any notice to terminate the subtenancy of the petitioner. Issue No. 4 was decided in affirmative observing that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 committed default in payment of rent and that it was not necessary to record any finding with respect to the default committed by the petitioner who was inducted as a sub-tenant by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Fifth and last issue was decided in affirmative and the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 was decreed for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3,020 with damages pendente lite and future by judgment and order dated 5.9.1997. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not challenge the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. A revision against the said decree was filed by the petitioner. The revisional court affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court, tt was held that the trial court took into consideration the entire evidence, oral and documentary on the record, thereafter recorded findings on the issues involved in the case in accordance with law, which did not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The revisional court, having recorded the said findings dismissed the revision by its judgment and order dated 31.7.2000. hence the present petition,