SURESH KUMAR JAIN Vs. RAM SARUP GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the civil revisions are against the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority allowing the landlord's plea seeking for ejectment on the ground of subletting. The orders were passed through a common judgment rendered by the appellate Court in two appeals filed by the persons arrayed as respondents 2 and 3 in the rent petition. The order passed by the Rent Controller was a subject of two appeals, one at the instance by each one of the persons described by the landlord before the Rent Controller as sub tenants.

(2.) The contention by the landlord Ram Sarup was that the property had been leased to one Sushil Kumar through a rent deed dated 31.01.1968 at Rs. 30/- per month. Sushil Kumar had sublet one shop on the southern side to Suresh Kumar and the shop on the nothern side to one Telu Ram without permission and consent of the landlord. Suresh Kumar is the revision petitioner in Civil Revision No.80 of 2001 and Telu Ram is the revision petitioner in Civil Revision No.208 of 2001. The contention of the landlord was rested on a plea that Sushil Kumar (his tenant) was actually contending that Suresh Kumar and Telu Ram were his partners, but it came to the notice of the landlord that Sushil Kumar had let out one portion of the shop at Rs. 225/- to Suresh Kumar and another portion of the property to Telu Ram at Rs. 205/- per month. Sushil Kumar had filed written statement completely admitting the landlord's plea and cited himself also as a witness.

(3.) The respondents 2 and 3 entered contest contending that the first respondent-Sushil Kumar had colluded with the landlord by the fact that the petitioner was himself a buffer stockist of Siri Ram Urea Fertilizer and respondent No.1 was one of his agents. It was the contention of respondents 2 and 3 before the Rent Controller that the property had never been sublet and that there was no form of letting in the first place by the landlord in favour of Sushil Kumar through a document dated 31.01.1968. The document itself was fabricated and created for the purpose of raising a false contention of the lease in favour of Sushil Kumar and a sub-lease in favour of respondents 2 and 3.