KASTURI LAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS Vs. SADHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed by the landlord-petitioner under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity "the Act") challenges judgment dated 26.9.1992 passed by the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur whereby it has reversed the judgment of the Rent Controller, Gurdaspur dated 12.6.1991 evicting the tenant-respondent 1 and sub-tenant-respondent 2 from the demised shop on the ground of sub-letting.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that tenant-respondent No. l Sadhu Ram was inducted as a tenant by the landlord-petitioner at a rent of Rs. 40/- per month. The landlord-petitioner had earlier filed an ejectment petition alleging that tenant-respondent-1 Sadhu Ram has handed over exclusive possession of the demised shop to his brother Mohinder Pal without obtaining consent of the landlord-petitioner and, therefore, he was liable to be ejected on the ground of sub-letting. That petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 31,3.1971 and a copy of the order has been exhibited as Ex.Rl. After 16 years, the landlord-petitioner has filed another application for ejectment being R.A. No. 3 of 2.4.1987 (R.B.T. No. l 1/14.3.1991) alleging that tenant-respondent No. l has handed over exclusive possession of the demised shop to sub-tenant respondent No. 2-Pawan Kumar who is nephew of tenant-respondent-1. The tenant-respondent contested the application by taking the stand that tenant-respondent No. l was earlier running a hotel and now he is doing Karyana business in the demised shop. He has, however, admitted that he started the business of Katcha Arthia (Commission Agent). He contested the allegation that exclusive possession of the demised shop has been delivered to Pawan Kumar, sub-tenant-respondent No. 2. It was asserted that in fact Pawan Kumar, sub-tenant respondent No. 2 is his nephew who merely helps him in the running of shop and the application is mala fide to enhance the rent.

(3.) In support of his case, landlord-petitioner produced documentary evidence in the form of Ex.Al which is photostat copy of Form "F". It shows that Pawan Kumar had obtained a licence from Labour Inspector in the year 1986 under the Punjab Commercial Shop Establishment Act. The afore-mentioned Form "F" was proved by the Labour Inspector who appeared as AW1. He also produced Ravinder Kumar, AW-3, Clerk Municipal Committee, Dhariwal who deposed that sub-tenant Pawan Kumar, respondent No. 2 had also obtained a licence from the Municipal Committee, Dhariwal for retail sale of Match-box and vegetables in the year 1986. Another document produced is the income tax return filed by the tenant-respondent No. l in respect of his new business of commission agent in the name of M/s Sadhu Ram and Sons from 1984 to 1988 showing his source of income as commission and no income from the business run in the demised shop has been reflected. There are statements of witness like AW9 Krishan Gopal who had stated that sub-tenant respondent No. 2 Pawan Kumar is running the business in the demised shop independently and AW10 Ravinder Kumar had stated that he had been selling foodgrains to Sadhu Ram tenant-respondent 1, in the grain market. AW-10 has also produced the receipts issued by Sadhu Ram regarding the purchase of foodgrains which are Ex.AWl0.l to Ex.AW10.12- The landlord-petitioner has appeared as his own witness to support the averments made in the ejectment petition. Another document produced on record is Form Dl which is a Form for preparation of ration card and the same is duly attested by Sarpanch of village Lehal. The afore-mentioned Form Dl has been produced as Ex.A2.