NARAIN DASS KAPUR Vs. DARSHANA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 23.3.1975, Narain Dass Kapoor filed an application for ejectment of his tenant Bhola Nath and sub-tenant Yog Raj from the shop situate in the town of Amritsar bearing NO. 2187/10 in Chowk Phullanwala on the ground that the tenant had sub-let the premises to the sub-tenant without his written permission. The tenant was proceeded against ex-parte as he did not appear despite service. The sub-tenant paid arrears of rent on the first date of hearing to avoid the additional ground of ejectment, which tender was not accepted by the landlord as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. In the meantime the sub-tenant died and his legal representatives were brought on the record. The legal representatives of the sub-tenant pleaded in their written statement that Yog Raj was the direct tenant under the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month from Feb, 1961 and pleaded that Yog Raj had paid rent upto 15.5.1973 and the balance was tendered in Court. It was pleaded that Kishan Chand or his sons Bhola Nath had no concern with the demised premises. On the contest of the parties, issues were framed and after evidence was led, the learned Rent Controller by a well considered order dated 18.9.1979 order ejectment of the tenant and sub-tenant on the ground of sub-letting. It was found that the sub-tenant failed to prove his direct tenancy with the landlord as he was not able to produce any rent note or lease deed; failed to produce any rent receipt from February, 1961 till May, 1973, for a period of over 12 years, and that the tenant failed to produce the accounts to prove that he was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month to the landlord. It was also found that the sub-letting was clearly established because vide rent note Exhibit A. 1, the premises in dispute were let out by the landlord to Kishan Chand, tenant, and Yog Raj executed rent note Exhibit A. 2 in favour of Kishan Chand thereafter. It clearly amounted to sub-letting and since no permission of the landlord was taken, the sub-letting was authorised. Before the ejectment order was passed on 18.9.1979, on 28.8.1979, i.e. after four years and five months of the filing of the ejectment petition the sub-tenant filed an application before the Rent Controller, which is at page 65 of the record, to produce evidence relating to the statement of the landlord in case No. 79/1977 decided on 29.4.1978 wherein the landlord made a statement that Yog Raj was a direct tenant with regard to the shop in dispute. It was so stated in para 3 of the application. In para 4 of the application, it was stated that there were other statements of the landlord and Bhola Nath, tenant, in another case Bhola Nath v. Yog Raj decided by Shri Sukhdev Singh on 30.11.1974 which contained certain admissions having relevancy and bearing on the matters in controversy in the case in hand and a note was appended that certain copies of the statements of Bhola Nath and the landlord mentioned in para 4 above were attached therewith. The certified copy of the statement contained in para 3 was not attached. This application having been filed at a highly belated stage, was dismissed by the Rent Controller by order dated 28.8.1979. Against the ejectment order, the sub-tenant filed an appeal. In para 4 of the grounds of appeal, attack was made against the order of the Rent Controller and no prayer was made for the production of the statement of the landlord regarding which mention was made in para 3 of the application. When the case was taken up by the Appellate Authorities, by order dated 16.10.1981 it allowed the produced of documents marked 'A' and 'B' which were exhibited by the Appellate Authority as Exhibits 'A' 'B'. For the production of these documents there was somewhat discussion in the order. The Appellate Authority also allowed the production of the copy of the statement of the landlord dated 15.9.1976 in the case decided between the parties on 29.4.1978 and the same was marked as Exhibit'C'. Regarding this, there was no discussion as to why this was being permitted to be admitted into evidence specially when there was no ground of appeal in this behalf.

(2.) FINALLY , the appeal was allowed on 11.1.1982 and the order of ejectment was set aside primarily on the basis of document Exhibit 'C'. This is landlord's revision in this Court.

(3.) I have gone through the statement Exhibit 'A' and 'B' and find that there is no admission of the landlord or Bhola Nath, the successor-in-interest of the alleged tenant which may go to show that Yog Raj was the direct tenant. This matter was put to the counsel for the legal representatives of Yog Raj. After going through these two documents, he has frankly conceded that in these two statements, there is no admission which may favour his clients. Accordingly, documents Exhibits 'A' and 'B' were wrongly used by the Appellate Authority in upsetting the well considered decision of the Rent Controller.