LAWS(P&H)-1981-2-79

MADAN LAL LOHIA Vs. PARMESHWARI DASS

Decided On February 09, 1981
MADAN LAL LOHIA Appellant
V/S
PARMESHWARI DASS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parmeshwari Dass and others respondent-landlords filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against Ram Dhari (Respondent No. 7) and Madan Lal Lohia (petitioner) for their ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as for sub-letting. The allegation on behalf of the landlords is that Mani Devi wife of Parmeshavari Dass had inducted Ram Dhari respondent as a tenant in the demised premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 65 on March 3, 1963 by means of a Rent Note. The latter had, however, not paid the rent from July 3, 1963 to August 3, 1969 and had, in fact, left Bhiwani. It was further alleged that Ram Dhari had sublet the demised premises to Madan Lal Lohia petitioner without the consent of the landlords. Respondent No. 1 did not contest the application and was proceeded against ex parte. However, the present petitioner contested the ejectment application, essentially on the ground that Ram Dhari after being inducted as a tenant in the demised premises, ceased to be so on September 27, 1964 and thereafter the demised premises remained in the possession of Messrs Ranjit Rai-Raj Kumar which Firm also left the premises and it is, on March 27, 1967 that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by Harchand Rai, brother of Parmeshwari Dass landlord. According to the petitioner, he had all along been paying the rent to the said Harchand Rai and hence he refuted his liability to be evicted. The petitioner, however, tendered some amount on account of arrears of rent and costs etc. The Rent Controller after considering the pleadings of the parties, framed the necessary issues and the only relevant issue for the purpose of the present controversy is as to whether the premises had been sublet by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner or whether the petitioner was proved to be a direct tenant of the landlords through Harchand Rai. The Rent Controller after considering the evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the subletting had been proved and he, therefore, ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority who also affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller. The petitioner has consequently come up in revision against the aforesaid decision of the Rent Control Authorities.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this Revision Petition is that the landlords had not succeeded in proving on the record by producing cogent evidence that the original tenant had sublet the premises to the petitioner. The argument in this behalf is that there is no material to show that the original tenant had parted with the tenancy rights as against some consideration. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the contention as put forward on behalf of the petitioner is not sound. As already noticed, the petitioner admitted in his own pleadings that the premises had been let by Mani Devi on behalf of the landlords first to Ram Dhari and then to Messrs Ranjit Rai-Raj Kumar. According to him, the disputed premises were then let to him by Harchand Rai on behalf of the landlords. In order to substantiate this circumstance, he produced Harchand Rai as his witness, but unfortunately the witness failed to support the contention of the petitioner. On the other hand, Harchand Rai deposed that the receipts of rent upon which the petitioner had relied upon pertained to some other property and not to the property in dispute. Harchand Rai categorically denied having inducted the petitioner as a tenant in the premises. This knocks the bottom of the case of the petitioner. It is well-settled that the allegation regarding sub-letting is difficult to prove by production of specific evidence in regard to the charging of rent by the tenant from the sub-tenant, which transaction is always behind the back of the landlord The fact, however, that the petitioner admitted being in control of the shop and not having been able to prove that he was a lawful tenant under the, landlords, does raise a presumption that his occupation is in consonance with the allegation of sub-letting.

(3.) Apart from the above, it is also settled law that this Court while exercising powers of Revision, would not normally upset a concurrent finding of fact recorded by two Authorities below, unless some extraordinary circumstance is brought out which there is none in the present case. The petitioner has, therefore, been rightly ordered to be evicted from the demised premises by the two Authorities below and their verdict is affirmed.