ASHWANI KUMAR PRASHAR Vs. ANIL KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenants' petition filed under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Act') challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that petitioner No. 1, Ashwani Kumar has sub-let the demised shop to petitioner No. 2 his brother.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the landlord-respondent filed an application No. 21/II-A of 1994 on 6.5.1994 under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner on the grounds of non-payment of rent and sub-letting. As the arrears of rent were paid ejectment on the ground of sub- letting alone survives. The case of the landlord-respondent as pleaded in the application was that the demised shop was rented to tenant-petitioner No. 1 Ashwani Kumar at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- w.e.f. August, 1983 and the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the landlord-respondent and tenant-petitioner No. 1. It was alleged that the tenant-petitioner No. 1 has sub-let the demised shop to tenant-petitioner No. 2 for a valuable consideration and has parted with its exclusive possession more than two years prior to the date of the filing of the ejectment petition. The stand of the tenant-petitioners in their written statement was that the tenancy was not created by the landlord-respondent but it was created by his father Jai Gopal. It was further asserted that the demised shop was rented out to M/s Prashar Electrical Works which has been a joint business of the tenant-petitioners and their two brothers namely Rakesh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar. The allegations of sub-letting to the tenant-petitioner No. 2 have been specifically denied by the tenant-petitioner No. 1 claiming that infact both of them have been the tenants in the demised shop alongwith their other brothers.

(3.) ON Issue No. 2 categorical findings were recorded that tenant-petitioner No. 1 alone has been inducted as a tenant in the demised shop and he was not running any joint family business. A detailed reference has been made to documentary and oral evidence to reach the afore-mentioned conclusion. The assessment register regularly maintained by the Municipal Committee for the year 1983-84 (Exs. A.1 to A.4) has been relied upon because the entries in the register showed that the tenancy was in favour of the tenant-petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. Exs. A.5 and A.6 are the counter foils of the original receipts issued at the initial stage in favour of tenant-petitioner No. 1 which are duly signed by Ashwani Kumar, tenant-petitioner No. 1. It is also pertinent to mention that tenant-petitioner No. 1 submitted an affidavit dated 22.11.1983 in the Municipal Committee, Gurdaspur which has been produced by one Vijay Kumar, Clerk, Municipal Committee. It has been duly attested by the official of the Committee. The affidavit given by the tenant-petitioner No. 1 categorically accepts that he has taken the demised shop on rent at the rate of Rs. 250/- p.m. on 23.8.1983.