BALBIR KUMAR Vs. ROSHAN LAL & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision partition against judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner landlords against one of the learned Rent Controller, disallowing the ejectment application against the tenants.

(2.) Ruldu Mal was the initial owner of the premises in dispute which is a shop. He let out premises in dispute. He let out this shop to Sant Ram and Parkash Lal. A rent note was executed by the tenants in favour of Ruldu Mal. Sometime in 1949 Roshan Lal husband of the sister of the tenant was inducted in these premises. After the death of Ruldu Mal, he was succeeded by Tarsem Lal, Bipan Kumar, his sons and Kamlesh Kumari his daughter Sant Ram and Parkash Lal execute another rent note is favour of Tarsem Lal and Vipan Kumar. There was a family partition amongst the heirs of Ruldu Mal and the shop in dispute fell to the share of Kamlesh Kumari. She sold this shop to Balbir Kumar and Ashok Kumar on 19th August, 1970. They filled an application for ejectment of Sant Ram and Parkash Lal their tenants inter alia on the ground that the tenants had sublet this shop to Roshan Lal.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller, decided issue Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of the petitioners and issue No. 2 against them. He held that Kamlesh Kumari was the sole owner and that respondents 2 and 3 (Sant Ram and Parkash Lal) had not sublet the shop in dispute to respondent No. 3 Roshan Lal. Dissatisfied with this decision, the landlords filed an appeal. It was argued by the appellants that the shop had been let out to Sant Ram and Parkash Lal. They had sublet it to Roshan Lal. Roshan Lal was not accepted as a tenant or a sub-tenant by the appellants or their predecessors-in-interest. In any, case, there was no written consent to the alleged subletting. The learned Appellate Authority examined the evidence, led on the file in minute details. The respondents had produced receipts Ex R. 11 to R. 15, which showed that Tarsem Lal son of Ruldu Mal had been receiving rent from Roshan Lal and had been issuing receipts in token thereof. They further got proved entries in the account books of the landlords Ex. R. 16 to R. 25 which showed that the rent of the shop in dispute was being received from Roshan Lal right from the year 1956 and the entries regarding the same were being continuously and regularly made in the books of account of the firm of the landlords. Tarsem Lal has scribed receipt R. 16 which reads as under :