RAM KISHAN Vs. HARJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed by Ram Kishan, tenant -petitioner, against the order of the Appellate Authority, dated February J 5, 1980, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, dated December 23, 1978, directing his ejectment was maintained.

(2.) Pritam Singh landlord, (now deceased) filed an application for ejectment of his tenants, Amar Singh and others, (the heirs and the legal representatives of Gurdial Singh the original tenant) and Ram Kishan, tenant -petitioner, alleging him to be the sub -tenant under Gurdial Singh, deceased According to the landlord, the premises, in dispute, were leased out to Gurdial Singh on a monthly rent of Rs. 2/ - vide rent note, Exhibit A. 1, dated September 2, 1963. The said Gurdial Singh sub -let the premises, in dispute, to Ram Kishan petitioner, who was in exclusive possession thereof and thereafter he was paying rent to the said Gurdial Singh. Gurdial Singh died in the year 1970. The ejectment application was filed on June 14, 1977. In the written statement, filed on behalf of the heirs and the legal representatives of Gurdial Singh, the claim of the landlord was admitted. However, the eviction application was contested on behalf of Ram Kishan, petitioner. It is pleaded by him that the eviction application had been filed by the landlord in collusion with the respondents who were the heirs and the legal representatives of Gurdial Singh, deceased, who was very close to the landlord. He (Gurdial Singh) was a Munim and was working with Panna Lal who was related to the landlord. He never did any work except munim during his whole life and he never occupied the shop, in dispute. The heirs and the legal representatives of Amar Singh were in collusion with the landlord and that false petition had been filed to affect his rights adversely. The son of the landlord was working in the adjoining shop since long and the landlord and his family members were residing in the chaubaras of the demised property. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller : - -

(3.) The Learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that Gurdial Singh, the alleged tenant, had died in the year 1977 and it has been admitted by the landlord that since then, no rent has been paid to him by his heirs and the legal representatives, but even then, the landlord has not claimed any arrears of rent in the present ejectment which was filed on June 14, 1977. According to the Learned Counsel, this clearly proves that the landlord was in collusion with Amar Singh and others, the heirs and the legal representatives of Gurdial Singh, deceased, to eject the petitioner from the premises, in dispute, otherwise Gurdial Singh was never the tenant, on the demised premises and it was the petitioner who has been in occupation thereof since 1963 and has been regularly paying the rent to Pritam Singh, landlord. It has been further contended that the landlord owns three shops and two godowns in Faridkot and the landlord himself was residing on the first floor of the premises, in dispute, but he never claimed the ejectment of the petitioner earlier either on the basis of the non -payment of the rent or on the ground of the alleged sub -letting by Gurdial Singh. Under the circumstances, according to the Learned Counsel, it is highly in probable that the landlord could keep silence for more than 13 years and would not take any action against his tenant for claiming the arrears of rent. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the respondents commended that both the authorities below on the basis of the rent note, Exhibit A/1, dated September 2, 1963, executed by Gurdial Singh, deceased, in favour of Pritam Singh, deceased, landlord, and the rent note Exhibit A/2, dated June 14, 1964, Exhibit A/2, executed by Ram Kishan, petitioner, in favour of Gurdial Singh, have concurrently found that Gurdial Singh, deceased, was the original tenant on the demised premises who sublet the same to Ram Kishan, petitioner, vide rent note dated April 14, 1964, Exhibit A/2, and, therefore, on account of the sub -letting, the landlord was entitled to an order of eviction and that the said finding of fact was not open to interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.