SADHU RAM KOHLI Vs. TARLOK NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord petitioner filed this application for ejectment of his tenant Tarlok Nath from the premises in dispute, which consist of a shop. The ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent and subletting to one Sat Paul brother of the tenant Tarlok Nath. Prior to the ejectment application notices Exhibits A-5 and A-6 dated 11th March, 1970 and 11th October, 1972, respectively, here served on Tarlok Nath tenant-respondent and replies thereto vide Exhibit A-2 dated 18th March, 1970 and Exhibit A-1 dated 2nd November, 1972, were sent to the landlord wherein it vas admitted on behalf of Tarlok Nath that he is the tenant on the premises in dispute. He had also executed a rent note Exhibit P-4, dated 8th February, 1968, in favour of the petitioner-landlord. In the written statement filed on behalf of Tarlok Nath it was pleaded that he was never the tenant on the premises in dispute; it was his brother Sat Paul who was the direct tenant on the premises under the landlord. He further stated that he never took the shop in dispute on rent on 8th February, 1968, nor did he execute any rent deed to that effect. Thus all the grounds of ejectment against him were controverted. He, however, admitted the receipt of the notices Exhibits A-5 and A-6, but pleaded that the same were wrongly served on him. As regards Sat Paul, the alleged sub-tenant, he pleaded that the creation of any tenancy by the landlord in favour of Tarlok Nath on a monthly rent of Rs. 21, with effect from 8th February, 1968, was absolutely false. According to him he himself had been in occupation as tenant on the shop under the landlord even prior to that date and that he continued to be in occupation of the said shop even after 8th February, 1968, till the filing of the present ejectment application. He further contended that he was not bound by the creation of any tenancy by the landlord in favour of Tarlok Nath as it was a result of collusion between them. Arrears of rent were also tendered by him on the first date of hearing. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues :-

(2.) Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the landlord and it was held that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between Sadhu Ram and Tarlok Nath, while the tenancy between the said Sadhu Ram and Sat Paul had come to an end earlier. On issue No. 3 it was held that Tarlok Nath was liable to be ejected on the ground of subletting only. As a result of these findings an order of ejectment was passed against them. No appeal was filed on behalf of Sat Paul, only Tarlok Nath went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Contoller under issue Nos. 1 and 2. According to the Appellate Authority the landlord has not been successful in proving that the tenancy of Sat Paul in respect of the shop in dispute had come to an end and that subsequently a new tenancy in respect of this shop had been created in favour of Tarlok Nath by Sadhu Ram landlord on 8th February, 1968, vide deed Exhibit A-4. Dissatisfied with the same the landlord has come up in revision in the Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as a matter of fact, Tarlok Nath had no locus standi to file the appeal before the Appellate Authority, because according to Tarlok Nath he was never the tenant under the landlord on the premises in dispute it was Sat Paul who was occupying the premises as tenant from the very beginning. According to the learned counsel it was Sat Paul, who should have filed the appeal. It was next contended that in any case the Appellate Authority has erred in reversing the finding of the Rent Controller under issue Nos. 1 and 2.