DES RAJ Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, who has allowed the appeal filed by the landlords and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner.

(2.) Kartar Singh and others, landlords, filed an application for ejectment under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against Brij Lal, Ved Parkash, their tenants and Des Raj (petitioner) on the ground that the shop in dispute had been rented out to Brij Lal and Ved Parkash at the rate of Rs. 800 per annum as rent. The tenants did not pay the rent from 1st of September, 1971 onwards. They had sublet a portion of the shop in dispute to Des Raj, petitioner, about four years back without the consent of the landlords in writing Brij Lal and Ved Parkash, respondents Nos. 5 and 6 admitted the claim and the allegations made by the landlords. They did not tender any rent. However, Des Raj, petitioner resisted the application and ? averred that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not sublet any portion of the shop in dispute to him They had colluded with the landlords to get him evicted. The Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) Mr D.R. Puri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that no reliance could be placed on Exhibits A. 1 to A. 8, because they are entries only in the Rokar Bahi. The Day Book has not been produced. In the absence of the Day Book, the entries in the Bahi Khata are not relevant and a admissible. In support of this contention, he has relied upon M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India and another, 1966 AIR(P&H) 229 and Chandi Ram Deka vs. Jaminikanta Deka,1952 AIR(Ass) 92. With great respect to the learned Judge who decided these cases, I am not able to concur with the views expressed by them. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act is clear. It makes the evidence of account books regularly maintained relevant and admissible. These books were produced. The entries were proved by Brij Lal without any objection. They stand proved on the file. They are corroborated by the oral statement of Brij Lal and to some extent by the statement of Kartar Singh, the landlord. They have been relied upon by the Appellate Authority. Appreciation of evidence does not fall within the scope of revisional jurisdiction. I am not inclined to take a different view of the evidence than the one taken by the learned Appellate Authority.