JAGDISH SINGH Vs. BRIJ MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD Brij Mohan (respondent No. 1) filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of the tenants Jagdish Singh petitioner and Ved Parkash (respondent No. 2). In the application for eviction, it was alleged that the shop situated in Chhota Chowk, Sangrur, was rented out by Brij Mohan to Ved Parkash on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- vide rent note dated 2.6.1966 and the said Ved Parkash sub-let the premises to Jagdish Singh on a monthly rent of Rs. 67/-. It was further averred that the tenants did not pay any rent or house tax for the premises taken by them on rent.

(2.) THE averments of the landlord were controverted by the tenants by filing separate written statements. It was stated by Ved Parkash (respondent No. 2), the original tenant, that the premises had been taken on rent by him on 28.6.1966 from the landlord and he had sub-let the same to Jagdish Singh (petitioner herein), but with the consent of the landlord. Jagdish Singh has also filed his written statement wherein it was claimed by him that he was a direct tenant under the landlord and, therefore, the alleged sub-tenancy was denied. The Rent Controller framed the following three issues :-

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the alleged rent note (Ex. P1) executed by petitioner Jagdish Singh in favour of Ved Parkash has been produced by landlord Brij Mohan and that the said document (Ex. P1) was a fabricated document. It is contended that in case it was executed in favour of Ved Parkash, then it could have been produced by Ved Parkash and not by the landlord. Thus, it is contended that no reliance could be placed on the alleged rent note executed by the petitioner in favour of Ved Parkash tenant. It has further been argued that the original rent note (Ex. P5/A) executed by Ved Parkash in favour of Brij Mohan was also not properly produced because neither the scribe nor any witness was produced to prove the document. It is contended that this document was got proved by the son of the scribe because the scribe had died and the second witness had also died. Because of the execution of the document (Ex. PW5/A) it cannot be said that the premises were rented out to Ved Parkash initially. It is also contended that there is no proof that the possession of the premises was ever handed over by Brij Mohan to Ved Parkash. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that the premises were initially let out by the landlord to the petitioner and the petitioner was not sub-tenant of Ved Parkash.