NAMAN & ORS Vs. RATTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Naman and others have filed this revision petition against the judgment of the Appellate Authority who affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller and ordered the ejectment of the petitioners.

(2.) Rattan Singh respondent filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter to be called as the Act) for ejectment of Naman and others from the shop situated at Mahilpur, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur, on the ground that the tenants have failed to pay rent of the shop from April 1, 1963 onwards. Naman and others appeared and contested the application. They averred in the written statement that they were carrying on their business in the premises in dispute but the Langari Shoe Makers Co-operative Industrial Society Ltd., Mahilpur (hereinafter to be called an the society) was the tenant and since the Society was not impleaded as a respondent the ejectment application was not competent. They further pleaded that rent was due after April, 1967. The Rent Controller framed the following four issues :

(3.) Mr. Sahni learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the judgment of the Appellate Authority is vitiated by a wholly erroneous legal approach It was for the respondent to prove that the petitioners were the tenants. It was not for the petitioners to prove that it was the society who was the tenant. The argument obviously lacks merit, The petitioners have admitted that they were occupying the premises and carrying on their business therein. Under these circumstances it was for them to show that the tenant was the society. They have not stated in the written statement that they were carrying on the business of the society. They have rather stated that they were carrying on their own business. They have miserably failed to prove that. Previously, Rattan Singh landlord filed a suit for the recovery of rent of this very shop against the petitioners There also they took the plea that they were not his tenants and the Society was the tenant. The Civil Court did not accept that plea and held that the petitioners were the tenants and they were liable to pay rent. The petitioners are bound by that finding.