SAT NARAIN SAINI Vs. SITA WATI ALIAS RENUTLP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS will dispose of Civil Revision No. 284 of 1985, and 57 of 1985, preferred by Sat Narain. Civil Revision No. 284 of 1985 arises out of a rent petition filed by the respondent for the ejectment of her tenant, namely Ram Parkash as well as sub-tenant namely Sat Narain (petitioner herein) on ground of subletting.

(2.) THE Rent Controller after appreciating the evidence on record ordered ejectment. In appeal filed by Sat Narain, order of the Rent Controller was affirmed. Civil Revision No. 284 of 1985 has been preferred by Sat Narain impugning the order of ejectment passed by the Authorities below. Civil Revision No. 657 of 1985 has been preferred in a petition for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 150/- per month w.e.f. 4.11.1981. Appeal filed by Sat Narain against this order was dismissed.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of record, I find no merit in the revision petition. Before the application for ejectment was filed, the landlady had filed a civil suit for possession against the tenant as well as the petitioner on the ground that she had given the premises on lease to Ram Parkash, who had sublet the same to Sat Narain. In the suit, she had also alleged that the shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1966 and, therefore, the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (briefly 'the Act'), were not applicable as the shops constructed after the year 1962 had been exempted from the various provisions of the Act. Ram Parkash, tenant, did not appear and was proceeded ex parte. The petitioner appeared in that suit and in his written statement, claimed himself to be tenant. During the pendency of the Civil suit, a compromise was arrived at between the landlady and the petitioner on 16th December, 1976. Under the said compromise, the petitioner agreed to vacate the premises on expiry of two years. He also agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per month for use and occupation of the premises. After the expiry of the said period, the petitioner did not vacate the premises, rather objected to the execution proceedings initiated by the landlady. Resistance to the execution was on the ground that the provision which exempted the applicability of the Act to the shop stood repealed with retrospective effect and in view of the repeal of that provision, the Act became applicable to the shop with retrospective effect and the decree of the Civil Court became a nullity. The executing Court dismissed the objection petition. Against the order of the executing Court, Civil Revision No. 1845 of 1979 was preferred by the petitioner, which was allowed by this Court, and as a consequence thereof, order of the executing Court was set aside and execution application was dismissed. After dismissal of the execution application, the present ejectment application was filed on the ground of subletting. The tenant did not contest the said application and was, therefore, proceeded ex parte. The petitioner alone contested the ejectment application. In his written statement, he rather took up the plea that landlady had let out the shop to M/s Shakti Engineering Works wherein he along with Ram Parkash were partners. He also stated that in the year 1971, the partnership was dissolved and after that, he continued to remain in possession of the shop as a tenant. The plea of the tenant cannot be accepted for the reason that rent-note Exh.A-1, which was executed at the time of inception of tenancy, was executed by Ram Parkash in his individual capacity. Perusal of Exh.A-1 shows that the shop was taken by Ram Parkash alone and that too, for not running the partnership business, as alleged by the petitioner in his written statement. Clause 6 of the rent-note indicates that the tenant had agreed not to sublet the premises or to induct any other person as a partner. Partnership deed Exh.R-3, is subsequent to the date of execution of the rent note, Exh.R-1. After the year 1971 when the partnership was dissolved, the tenant walked out of the premises and the petitioner alone continued to remain in possession. The shop was not let out to the petitioner, either by Makhmali Devi, original landlady, or by Sita Wati, the present landlady. The petitioner also cannot derive any help from the application which was alleged to have been given to the Electricity Department at the time of getting electricity connection. This application was given during the continuance of the partnership and not at the time of taking the premises on rent. The document is also otherwise suspicious. In the list of documents relied upon by the tenant, this document does not find mention. No body has come forward to prove the thumb impression of the landlady on this application. In his statement as RW-1, the petitioner has nowhere stated that this application was filed by him and Makhmali Devi had thumb marked the same. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on this document. As far as the letters written by the husband of the landlady are concerned, the same pertained to the year 1970 when the partnership was in existence. These documents do not indicate that the landlady ever admitted the petitioner to be her tenant. The very fact that the civil suit was filed in August, 1974, in which landlady specifically averred that Ram Parkash, her tenant, sublet the premises to the petitioner, goes a long way to show that she never admitted the petitioner to be her tenant. In the civil suit, the petitioner agreed to vacate the premises and on his undertaking, two years' time was allowed to him for the purpose. The landlady could not succeed in her execution, but nevertheless, the petitioner remained a sub-tenant. Therefore, I am of the view that the orders of the Authorities below call for no interference.