SURINDER KUMAR MOTI Vs. SOHAN SINGH MOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of two petitions - Civil Revision Nos. 1378 and 1519 of 1982 as they involve common question of law and fact. For the purpose of this judgment, the fact of Civil Revision No. 1378 of 1982 have been noticed.

(2.) SOHAN Singh, respondent, filed this petition seeking ejectment of the petitioners alleging that the demised premises, had been let out to Mrs. Surinder Kaur on March 6, 1976 vide rent note, Exhibit A-8, at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- but, she has not paid the rent since the month of April 1976 and has sub-let the said premises to her husband Surinderjit Singh. Both the petitioners opposed the claim of the landlord. Smt. Surinder Kaur pleaded that she never took the premises in dispute on lease; that the alleged rent note was a sham and paper transaction and that it was got executed from her by fraud and undue influence. Surinderjit Singh denied that he was a sub-tenant and pleaded that he was in occupation of the demised premises as co-owner having 1/3 share in the whole of the shop-cum-flat in dispute. He also endorsed the plea of Smt. Surinder Kaur that the alleged lease was a sham and paper transaction. It may be mentioned that in view of this defence, none of the petitioners paid or tendered any rent.

(3.) THE concurrent findings of the authorities below were challenged on the ground that some of the documents placed on record were not taken into consideration and a reference in this connection was made to Exhibit PW/1, assessment order of the Income-tax Officer, registration certificate under the Shop Act Exhibit R-5 and the certificate issued by the Easte Officer, Exhibit R-8. However, these documents are in no way helpful to the petitioners. In the assessment order, Sohan Singh had shown himself to be the owner of 1/3 share but his plea was not accepted as he was earlier showing himself to be the sole recipient of the rent of the premises in dispute. As the transfer deed stood in the name of Sohan Singh and his two sons, the former had no option but to show himself as owner of 1/3 share. Similarly the fact that the names of three of them were mentioned in the certificate issued by the Estate Officer, Exhibit R-8 is no consequence because the plea was that the sons of Sohan Singh were only benamidars. So far as Exhibit R-6 is concerned it relates to the year 1972 and shows Surinderjit Singh as the employer of the establishment of Dev Traders. This fact has hardly any bearing on the case because later on Dev Trader was converted into a partnership concern. Moreover, as to whether Surinderjit Singh is a co-owner or not has hardly any bearing on the finding that Smt. Surinder Kaur took the premises in dispute on lease from Sohan Singh. All other circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel such as that possession was not delivered to Smt. Surinder Kaur under the lease; that in the rent note, Exhibit A-5, Sohan Singh and his two sons were shown to be the owners were duly taken into consideration by the authorities below while rejecting the defence that the lease deed was only a sham transaction. The authorities below relied not only on the lease-deed, Exhibit A-8, but also the two subsequent dissolution deeds, Exhibits P-14 and P-15, also marked as, Exhibits R-1 and R-2 wherein Surinderjit Singh had admitted Sohan Singh to be the sole owner of the demised premises and that the same had been let out to Smt. Surinder Kaur. The authorities below have thus on consideration of relevant evidence and circumstances arrived at a reasonable conclusion that the demised premises were leased out to Smt. Surinder Kaur and no case has been made out to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.