SH GHISA RAM GUPTA Vs. MEERAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition directed against the orders of the Courts below, whereby ejectment petition filed by the landlord was dismissed.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that Ghisa Ram (petitioner herein) claiming himself to be owner of the property, filed an ejectment Petition against his daughter-in-law, Meeran Devi (respondent No. 1 herein) and Tarsem Lal (respondent No. 2, herein), alleging therein that complete house including a shop now in possession of respondent No2, was let out to respondent No. 1 vide rent-note dated 5. 1. 1981 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month, but thereafter, respondent No. 1 sublet the shop to respondent No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month under rent-note dated 1-6-83, executed in favour of respondent No. 1. Ejectment was sought on the ground of sub-letting. Respondent No. 1 admitted the claim of her father-in-law, whereas respondent No. 2 contested the petition on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 further averred in his written statement that at the time the tenancy was created, a rent note was executed in favour of respondent No. 1 in the presence of the petitioner, and from that date, he had been paying the rent to respondent No. 1. The Rent Controller on the appreciation of evidence on record, found that rent-note dated 5-1-1981, i. e. between petitioner and respondent No. 1 is a fake document and was created only for the purpose of seeking ejectment of respondent No. 2. Consequently, the ejectment petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller. On appeal by the petitioner, the finding of the Rent Controller was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Petitioner has now impugned the orders of both the Courts below by way of present revision petition.

(3.) MR. S. P. Jain, counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contented that though respondent No. 2 executed a rent-note in favour of respondent No. 1 in the presence of the petitioner, yet respondent No. 2 has not explained as to why he did not execute the rent-note in favour of the petitioner and why the rent was not paid to him when he know that Ghisa Ram, petitioner, was the owner. He further contended that no receipt has been brought on record to show that respondent No. 2 ever paid the rent to the petitioner and, thus respondent No. 2 cannot be held to be a direct tenant under the petitioner.