GURBAKHSH SINGH Vs. SARDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Pritam Dass who was owner of the property in dispute mortgaged the same to Gurbux Singh, petitioner vide mortgage deed Ex. A. 1. Gurbux Singh thereafter inducted Sardara Singh S. as a tenant in the premises in dispute vide rent note Ex. A. 2. It appears that Sardara Singh further sublet the premises in dispute to Karam Chand. Gurbux Singh thereafter filed an ejectment application before the Rent Controller, Jalandhar against the tenant and Karam Chand, Sub tenant seeking their eviction on the ground of sub letting. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the finding of the appellate Court that the lease deed Ext. A. 2 could not be looked into being unregistered and as such, there was no evidence to show the relationship of landlord the tenant between Gurbax Singh and Sardara Singh, was erroneous, in as much that the relationship between them could be proved from other evidence as well, as Karam Chand, respondent had claimed ownership of the premises in dispute and this plea has been negatived by the authority below. I find force in this submission of the learned counsel. It has to be noted that the lease deed Ext. A 2 was executed between Gurbax Singh and Sardara Singh and the question of handing over the possession to Karam Chand as sub tenant, which was point in issue between the parties, was not even remotely dealt with. It is the conceded case that the possession had been handed over by Gurbux Singh in terms of the mortgage deed and on facts it has been found that Karam Chand had been inducted as a sub tenant by Sardara Singh. It is therefore, clear that the finding of the appellate authority that the lease deed Ext. A2 could not be looked into-for any purpose is totally unwarranted and not relevant at all for determing the relationship between the contesting parties. Once it has been found on a question of fact that the tenancy and sub tenancy had been created, the lease deed Ext. A 2 in any case would be redundant.

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed and the order of the appellate Court is set aside. It is also clear that basically it was Karam Chand who fought the litigation before the Courts below and even before this Court, he alone is represented by counsel. However, the tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises provided he deposits the entire arrears of rent and the advance rent for the period of three months and also files an undertaking before the Rent Controller to effect that he shall vacate the premises aforesaid, within one month. No costs.