MOHAN LAL Vs. MAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Shri Mohan Lal against an order of eviction which was passed by the Rent Controller at Gurgaon on the application of the landlady, Smt. Maya Devi (respondent No. 1) in this Court under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on the findings that the shop in dispute had been let out to Amar Nath, respondent No. 2, who had failed to pay any rent after 1.2.1967 and that he had sublet the premises to Shri Mohan Lal petitioner, (respondent No. 2 in the ejectment application). An appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority at Gurgaon who upheld the findings of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller. Amar Nath who had been described as the original tenant had failed to appear at any stage of these proceedings. Shri Mohan Lal, the alleged sub tenant, has therefore filed this revision petition under section 15(5) of the Act.

(2.) It is doubtful whether, in this revision petition, I can interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller and the appellate Authority that the shop had been let out to Amar Nath who had sub let it to Mohan Lal, petitioner without the consent of the landlord or landlady. The respondent's counsel has in this connection relied upon Pandit Kishan Lal v. Ganpat Ram Khosla and another, 1961 AIR(SC) 1554, Neta Ram and others v. Jiwan Lal and another,1962 PunLR 694 Kimiti Lal v. Seth Nanak Chand,1967 PunLR 799and Shri Shori Lal v. Lt. Surinder Kumar Mehra, 1969 CurLJ 875. In Pandit Kishan Lal's case the Supreme Court had allowed the appeal to set aside the order of the High Court on the ground that the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were binding on the High Court. I have also been taken through the relevant parts of the records of the Courts below and have no reason to disturb these findings. It was the petitioner's case that he was in possession of the shop as a direct tenant of Smt. Basanti Devi widow of Din Dayal and he had executed a rent note in her favour. There is nothing on record to suggest that Smt. Basanti Devi had taken any steps to assert her rights under any such rent note or had been realising rent from the petitioner. It was so very easy for the petitioner to prove his case by producing receipts of rents paid by him to Smt. Basanti Devi. The rent note alleged to have been executed in favour of Smt. Basanti Devi was produced before the Appellate Authority by none other than the petitioner and this alone may show that he had been trying to fabricate evidence by getting entries made in the register of a licensed petition writer about the execution of this rent note which continued to be in his own possession. Basanti Devi is the mother-in-law of Smt. Kusam Devi would have been colluding with the petitioner and would have handed over this tent note to Mohan Lal for being produced as evidence in the Court. She would not have allowed Kusam Devi to sell away this shop if she had been the owner of property. The sale could not have remained unknown to Smt. Basanti Devi as her alleged tenant, Mohan Lal petitioner, was sure to have brought this sale to her notice on the ground that he was being faced with demands for the payment of the rent of the shop by another person also. Kusam Devi was in a position to deliver actual physical possession of a part of the property to Maya Devi under the sale. The shop was said to have been let out to Amar Nath by Kusam Devi's husband, Shri Hira Lal. All these assertions of title may show that Basanti Devi was not the owner of the property at the material time. The petitioner's case that this property had at one time belonged to the whole family branch of Din Dayal finds support from the sale deed executed by Kusam Devi in favour of Maya Devi but we have no reasons to dispute the recitals made in that sale deed that the shop had fallen to the share of Kusam Devi in a private family partition.

(3.) The most important fact which may seem to show that the plea set up by Mohan Lal petitioner that he was a direct tenant of Smt. Basanti Devi is false is that he had readily paid all the arrears of rent amounting 10 more than Rs. 500/- to Maya Devi in this Court. No body would incur double liability for the payment of rent of the premises for the same period to two persons. Amar Nath, the original tenant had obviously come to some settlement with Mohan Lal and had washed his hands of the whole affair after putting the petitioner in possession of the premises. His indifference and lack of interest in the proceedings and the final out come cannot be explained on any other hypothesis. I have therefore no reasons to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact in the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that Amar Nath who was the original tenant had sub let the premises to the petitioner without the consent of the landlady and that he was further liable to eviction on the ground of his being in arrears with payments of rent.