RULIA RAM Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision is directed against the concurrent decisions of the appellate authority and the Rent Controller rejecting the application of the landlord for eviction of the tenant. The eviction was claimed on the ground of sub-letting. According to the landlord. the shop was rented out to one Om Parkash on June 18, 1962 and Om Parkash after the two months sub-let it to Jagdish Chander. The landlord came to know of the sub-letting, but was told by Om Parkash that Jagdish Chander was his relation and in fact the shop was in his possession. Later on, the landlord came to know definitely that the premises had been sub-let and he sent a notice on June 18, 1967 to Om Prakash to vacate the shop. It was mentioned in the notice that the rent had not been paid from June 13, 1963 and the shop had been sub-let. This notice was not acknowledged by Om Parkash. In the meantime, Jagdish Chander made a complaint through his father, at whose instance the Public Grievances Officer came and brought about a compromise between Jagdish Chander and the landlord. This is the case set up by Jagdish Chander, the alleged substanant. In pursuance of the compromise, Rulia Ram passed a receipt for Rs. 1,350/- to Jagdish Chander and curiously enough a rent note Exhibit A-13 was executed on August 17, 1967 by Om Parkash in favour of Rulia Ram, but not by Jagdish Chander. Jagdish Chander's case is that he had been a tenant from the very start and directly under ulia Ram and no rent note or lease was executed. In the account books of Rulia Ram payment of Rs. 1,350/- is entered, whereas there is no mention of this In the accounts produced by Jagdish Chander. In fact, Jagdish Chander's case is that he has been paying the rent regularly and no receipt was issued by the landlord and when the Public Grievances Officer came on the scene, the receipt was passed on to him for Rs. 1,350/-. In the account books of Jagdish Chander, regular payment of rent is shown, but from his cross-examination, it is clear that his books cannot be accepted as genuine, whereas no cross-examination was directed so far as the landlord's account books are concerned. Curiously enough, the appellate authority did not advert to this aspect of the case and was gullible enough to accept the explanation of Jagdish Chander that he had lost the receipt passed by Rulia Ram to him. I have not been able to understand why it was necessary for Om Parkash to execute the rent note Exhibit A/3 on August 17, 1967. At the time of compromise in fact, Jagdish Chander should have demanded that he executes the rent note instead of Om Parkash if what he is now saying is correct. After considering the entire matter, I am of the view that the Appellate Authority has not adverted to all the material evidence on the record and various facts and circumstances of the case and has arrived at an erroneous decision.

(2.) For the reasons recorded above, I allow this petition, quash the order of the Appellate Authority and remit the case to it for a fresh decision. The Appellate Authority will furnish opportunity to the parties, if they so (which, to produce additional evidence). If they do not, the Appellate Authority will decide the petition, on the evidence as it stands. It must advert to all the evidence oral or documentary in its order, so as to show that it has applied its mind to the entire matter and has appreciated the contentions of the counsel for the parties urged before him. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on January 15, 1973. The Appellate Authority should decide the appeal within three months when the parties appear before him. The costs will abide the event. Petition accepted.