SARDHA RAM Vs. PARAS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed in this Court in the following circumstances. Paras Ram, Plaintiff instituted a suit, from which this appeal has arisen, for ejectment of Sardha Ram, Defendant -Appellant before me, from shop No. C. 681, G.T. Road, Karnal, on the allegation that the shop in question had been purchased by him in an auction held by the Rehabilitation Department and that the Defendant had admitted him to be the landlord. The Defendant had been in occupation of the shop as a tenant even before the auction and was apparently so at the time of the auction as well. The ejectment was sought on the grounds (1) that the Defendant had not paid rent for the period from 25th July, 1958 to 25th March, 1959, which amounted to Rs. 105 at the rate of Rs. 15 per mensem; (2) that he had sublet the shop without the Plaintiff's consent to two persons Sant Ram and Krishan Lal; and (3) that he had converted the use of the shop which was first being used for carrying on cloth business but is now being used for doing business in shoes. Notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act was pleaded to have been duly served and it was asserted that the Defendant had in spite of it failed to vacate the shop in question.

(2.) THE Defendant contested the suit controverting all the allegations of the Plaintiff and adding a plea that the shop being situated within the local limits of the Municipal Committee, Karnal, the present suit did not lie in the civil Courts. In so far as the allegation with respect to sub -lease to Sant Ram is concerned, the Defendant asserted that Sant Ram was his partner in the business which was being carried on in the shop in question. Sub -lease in favour of Krishan Lal, was, however, denied.

(3.) SARDHA Ram, took an appeal to the Court of the District Judge, but the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, on 25th April, 1960. In so far as the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain the present suit is concerned, reliance was placed in support of the Plaintiff's plea on Debi Pershad v. Choudhari Brothers Ltd. etc., A.I.R. 1949 E.P. 357 where Harnam Singh, J., laid down that Section 13(1) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, merely bars execution of a decree passed in a suit for the eviction of a tenant in possession of a building or rented land before or after the commencement of the said Act, but it does not prohibit institution of a suit for the eviction of a tenant in possession of a building or rented land. The learned Judge further repelled the contention that the decrees contemplated within the meaning of Section 13(1) are merely those decrees which may be passed after the commencement of this Act in suits which were pending on the date when the Act came into force. The learned Judge, thus did not see any justification to limit the scope of Section 13(1) to decrees being passed in suits pending at the time when the Act, came into force. The learned Additional District Judge in the case in hand also referred to Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, No. 44 of 1954 and observed that this section prescribed a special mode of ejectment of tenants, who are liable to be ejected within two years of the transfer of property. The grounds contained in Section 29 not being similar to those contained in Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, the lower appellate Court ruled that the present suit was entertainable by Civil Courts, whose jurisdiction was not barred. The trial Court's decision on the question of change of user of the shop in question and the validity of notice was not assailed in the Court below. Subletting of the thura by the Defendant to Krishan Lal, however, was not held to have been proved, but in so far as the question of sub -lease in favour of Sant Ram, or delivery of possession to him is concerned, the lower appellate Court upheld the plea of the sub -lease. The defence of a partnership between Sardha Ram and Sant Ram was negatived and it was observed that the partnership was a mere contrivance to evade the law regarding ejectment of tenants. On these grounds, the appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Court of first instance affirmed.