KARAM CHAND CHUNI LAL Vs. PISTA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1, Smt. Pista Devi is the owner of the premises in dispute. She rented out the same to M/s. Karam Chand Chuni Lal etc. the petitioner on an yearly rent of Rs. 192/- per annum. It appears that the tenant M/s. Karam Chand Chuni Lal sublet the premises to respondent No. 2 M/s. Sat Parkash Sanjeev Kumar, Commission Agents. The aforesaid commission agents started using these premises as their godown and accordingly stocked their goods in it. These goods were pledged by respondent No. 2 with the Punjab National Bank, Kaithal and as per the procedure of the Bank for securing pledged goods, the Bank put its own lock on the premises in dispute. Pista Devi accordingly filed an application for ejectment of the tenant under Section 13(2) (ii) (a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and also made the Bank a co-respondent. The tenant M/s. Karam Chand Chuni Lal, admitted the tenancy but denied the creation of a sub-tenancy in favour of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2, too, denied the allegation that it had ever taken over the lease rights of the property in question. Respondent No. 3, the Punjab National Bank also denied having taken possession but stated that the goods lying in the premises belonged to respondent No. 2 though they had been pledged with the Bank and as such the bank had put its lock on the premises in dispute. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- (1) Whether the respondents are liable to ejectment as alleged? OPA (2) Relief.

(2.) THE Rent Controller found that M/s. Karam Chand Chuni Lal i.e. the petitioner had not parted with the legal possession of the premises in dispute, to respondent No. 2 and accordingly dismissed the ejectment application. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, an appeal was taken to the appellate authority who allowed the appeal holding that from the facts of the case it was apparent that the petitioner had handed over the possession to respondent No. 2 and as a matter of fact, this respondent had handed over possession to respondent No. 3, as the very fact that it had put its lock on the premises in dispute showed that it was this party that was in possession of the demised premises. The appeal was, therefore, allowed vide order dated 4th September, 1980. Aggrieved thereby, the tenants i.e. M/s. Karam Chand Chuni Lal have come up in revision. This petition was originally filed by Mr. D.V. Sehgal, a Senior Advocate of this Court, who was thereafter elevated to the Bench. This case came up for hearing on 31st March, 1992, when Mr. P.S. Rana, who had appeared with Mr. D.V. Sehgal as a junior counsel, sought time to seek instructions from his clients. The case was adjourned to 7th May, 1992. Today, however, the counsel for the petitioner is not present and I have heard the arguments of Mrs. Alka Sarin, learned counsel for respondent-Pista Devi.

(3.) I also find force in the argument of Mrs. Sarin that once it had been found that the Bank had put its own lock on the premises in dispute in order to secure the pledged goods and for opening the lock, the keys too had to be taken from the Bank, was conclusive of the fact that possession had been handed over by the tenants to the sub-tenant, as has been held in Panna Lal v. Firm Vakil Chand Pawan Kumar and Anr., 1980(2) RCR 566 (P&H) : 1980 PLR 734. I have gone through the judgment cited. I find that the facts of that case are almost identical with the facts of the case in hand. It has been held therein that if the Bank authorities took possession of a godown and put their own lock on it, which was a normal procedure in Banking practice, there could be no escape from the conclusion that the tenant had parted with the possession and control of the premises in dispute. As already mentioned, the ratio of this judgment fully applies to the facts of the present case.