KESAR CHAND Vs. LACHHMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition filed under Section 15(5) 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 the tenant-petitioner No. 1 has handed over exclusive possession of the demised shop to sub-tenant-petitioner No. 2 Ruldu Ram who is his brother.

(2.) A perusal of paras 10 and 11 of the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 12.10.1999 and para 11 of the judgment of the Appellate Authority would make it evident that there is cogent evidence on record adduced by the landlord- respondent showing that the tenant-petitioner has parted with exclusive possession of the demised shop and that he has opened his own business in the same area at a distance of about 15 mts. under the name and style as Pappu Cycle Stores. In support of the conclusion both the Courts below have accepted that Ruldu had got installed a telephone No. 62656 in his own name at the demised shop on 28.5.1994 and it was installed in pursuance to an application filed by Ruldu Ram on 28.5.1993. The possession of sub tenant-petitioner No. 2 Ruldu Ram is further established from the municipal record as proved by Mukhtiar Singh, PW2 JE Municipal Council, Samrala who exhibited the revenue register Ex.P1. in respect of the year 1986-87 and the position is the same in respect of earlier years i.e. 1979-80 and 1980 to 1983. It is further revealed that Ruldu Ram, sub-tenant-petitioner No. 2 has been recorded as a tenant under the landlord-respondent Lachhman Singh @ Rs. 192/-. The position is the same in respect of the years 1989-90 and 1992-93. It is thus evident that there is over-whelming evidence on record to prove exclusive possession of Ruldu Ram, sub-tenant-petitioner No. 2.

(3.) MR . M.L. Saggar, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that if reference is made to the statement of Lachhman Singh landlord-respondent, then it would become evident that the shop was handed over to Ruldu Ram after one month of the execution of the rent note on 19.9.1960. The learned counsel has, thus, argued that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse because no plea of subletting could be set up by the landlord- respondent after such a long time by filing an application for ejectment in the year 1997. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Om Parkash v. Kailash Chander, 1999(2) RCR(Rent) 569 (SC) : 2000(1) SLJ 435 and Radhey Shyam and another v. Vinodi Lal and another, 2002(2) RCR 74 and argued that the plea of subletting cannot be set up after an inordinate delay of 37 years.