GANGA BISHAN Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GANGA Bishan petitioner purchased a vacant site measuring 14 yds x 5yds at Majitha Road, Amritsar from M/s Phagu Mal Sant Ram on February 27, 1965. Out of this plot Madan Lal respondent was in occupation of a small portion measuring 14" x 5" as a tenant. According to the petitioner, Madan Lal respondent took another piece of land adjacent to the one already in his occupation from him on rent. Madan Lal was paying Rs. 40 per month as rent of the piece of land in his occupation before February 27, 1965 and agreed to pay Rs. 60 per month as rent for the second piece of land which he took on rent from the petitioner. On July 22, 1972 the petitioner filed an ejectment petition against Madan Lal and his father Rattan Chand respondents on the ground of non-payment of rent, sub-letting by Madan Lal in favour of Rattan Chand and for personal requirement. Later on, the petitioner amended the ejectment petition averring that the sub-letting by Madan Lal was in favour of Subhash Chand.

(2.) SUBHASH Chand has not been impleaded as a party. Madan Lal and Rattan Chand respondents contested the ejectment petition. According to Madan Lal, the entire plot measuring 15' to 14" in his occupation was on rent with him at the rate of Rs. 20 per month since before the purchase made by the petitioner. He denied sub-letting either in favour of Rattan Chand or Subhash Chand.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed two points during arguments. The first point argued is that the Rent Controller and the appellate authority have wrongly found that Madan Lal respondent had not sublet the site in favour of Subhash Chand. The contention is without merit. It was in 1977 that a new plea was raised that the sub-letting had been made in favour of Subhash Chand. Subhash Chand had not been made a party. The petitioner appeared as a witness and did not state that the subletting had been made in favour of Subhash Chand. Virender Kumar attorney of the petitioner did so see in his statement recorded on March 3, 1976 whereas the plea regarding sub-letting in favour of Subhash Chand was raised later. AW 5 Saran Lal Singh appeared as a witness for the petitioner and stated that Subhash Chand submitted bill marked 'A' to the bank in the name of Madan Tea Stall, Majitha Road, Amritsar. The appellate authority has rightly observed that it appears that Subhash Chand at one time was an employee of Madan Lal respondent who was running the tea stall under the name and style "Madan Tea Stall". The appellate authority has also rightly held that there is no evidence that Subhash Chand was at any time in exclusive possession of the land or in any part thereof or for consideration. The finding of the appellate authority that the petitioner has failed to establish the subletting of the land by Madan Lal respondent is affirmed.