PARI LAL Vs. HAR DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment would dispose of two revision petition Nos. 1122 and 1222 of 1983, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the cases. Facts are being taken from C.R. No. 1222 of 1983.

(2.) THE petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the shop in question, in respect of which the eviction petition has been filed under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The said shop is stated to have been let out to respondent No. 1 vide rent deed dated February 25, 1970 at a monthly tenancy of Rs. 50/-. It is alleged that the tenancy was for a fixed period of 11 months and that after the expiry of the period of 11 months, respondent No. 1 became a statutory tenant. It has also been alleged that respondent No. 1 without the permission of the petitioner let out the shop to respondent No. 2 and that he has given up his tenancy rights in respect of the demised premises. It is further alleged that respondent No. 1 is charging Rs. 80/- per month as rent from respondent No. 2. The eviction petition has been filed on two grounds i.e. non-payment of rent and subletting the demised premises to respondent No. 2 without the written prior permission of petitioner.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 appeared as RW1 and has proved the rent note executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 which has been exhibited as Ex. PX. The pivotal question which arose before the Rent Controller is : "Whether by virtue of execution of rent note Ex. PX, it could be accept that respondent No. 1 had come into possession of the demised premises as tenant ?" The petitioner also appeared as his won witness and his statement has been recorded as AW5. He has admitted that respondent No. 1 worked in Aggarwal Mill and that after leaving the mill, he has not done any other work. It has been disclosed that he worked in the said mill upto 1974-75, the rent note is stated to have been executed on March 25, 1970. Thus, it is not understandable how respondent No. 1 could have taken possession of the shop (demised premises) in 1970 and could have also run the business. Respondent No. 1 while appearing as RW1 has not been able to spell out as to when his job/contract with Aggarwal mill came to an end. The statement is vague and evasive. respondent No. 1 has also not produced the rent receipts nor he has been able to show any corroborative evidence to establish the factum of having come into possession of the shop in question. If he was carrying on some business, the books of accounts could have been produced as attendant circumstance for establishing his possession, none of the kind has been done. The witnesses produced for establishing possession of respondent No. 1 have also not clearly stated as to from which date to which date respondent No. 1 was in possession and on what date respondent No. 2 came into possession of the shop. However, it has been stated that after respondent No. 1 another person came into possession of the shop i.e. Moti Ram but nothing has been stated for how much period he had come into possession of the shop. The witnesses are erratic in their averments. It may be noticed that the attesting witness named upon the rent note has not been produced for reasons best known. Resultantly, the Rent Controller has come to a tacit finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 could not be established and that the issue in respect thereof has been decided against the petitioner.