SITA DEVI Vs. CHAMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner moved a petition for ejectment of respondent-tenant from the shop in dispute on a number of grounds but the only one which survives for the purpose of this revision is that of sub-letting. The allegations made in this regard in the petition are that the respondent has sublet the demised premises to respondent No. 2 Megh Raj and himself is running another shop in the name of Messrs Manohar Lal Naresh Kumar. The tenant controverted the allegations made and pleaded that the second shop was run by his brother, Manohar Lal whereas in the shop in dispute he was carrying on business with his father in the name of Messrs Megh Raj Chaman Lal. He further pleaded that he, Manohar Lal and their father constituted a joint Hindu family and were having joint residence and business. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority negatived the plea of sub-letting and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has come up in this revision.

(2.) BEFORE the Appellate Authority, the tenant argued that to establish sub letting it was necessary to show that there existed an agreement between the tenant and the person to whom the shop is alleged to have been sublet and that the original tenant was not occupying the demised premises. Without discussing any evidence or the circumstances proved on the record, the Appellate Authority agreeing with the said contention observed that the landlady has failed to prove the factum of subletting. As the judgment of the Appellate Authority does not contain any satisfactory discussion on the question of subletting I called upon the counsel for the parties to make elaborate arguments with reference to the evidence available on the record. I also required the tenant to produce on record the copies of the sale tax registration certificates which has since been done.

(3.) IN rebuttal, the respondent produced D.W. 1 Bhagwan Dass, D.W. 2 Sadhu Singh and D.W. 3 Jagdish who have deposed that Chaman Lal sits and works at the shop in dispute with his father Megh Raj. In his own statement, the tenant pleaded that he is joint in business with his father and both of them are carrying on the business in the shop in dispute. No reliance on the ocular statements of these witnesses can be placed as it is not difficult for any party to produce any number of them in support of their case. However, from the documentary evidence it is positively established that the shop run in the name of Megh Raj Chaman Lal is solely owned by Megh Raj and is not the joint business of the father and the son as alleged by the tenant. The tenant has admitted that he has hired another shop where as similar business of utensils is being carried on. If the tenant was running a utensil business jointly with his father in the shop in dispute, it was highly improbable that he would set up another shop in a small town like Charkhi Dadri. Moreover, the tenant has not cared to produce in evidence the account the account books of the firm Messrs Megh Raj Chaman Lal to prove that he was the joint owner of this firm and their non-production gives rise to a strong presumption against him that the said firm is exclusively owned by Megh Raj. No doubt in the assessment order placed on the record by the tenant alongwith the sales tax registration certificate, the firm Messrs Megh Raj Chaman Lal is shown to the H.U.F. (Hindu Undivided Family) but in the body of the order. Chaman Lal is shown to be the sole proprietor of the said firm. These orders, therefore, contradict the stand taken by Chaman Lal that the said firm belongs to the family. Moreover, no reliance can be placed on these orders as they relate to the period when the dispute between the parties had already arisen and the facts mentioned in them are nothing but admissions of the tenant in his own favour. From the documentary evidence referred to above and the statement of A.W. 2, Inspector Municipal Committee, Charkhi Dadri, who is disinterested and independent witness, it has been satisfactorily proved by the petitioner that the shop in dispute is exclusively occupied by Megh Raj and the tenant is running his business at another shop. Once it is established that Megh Raj is in exclusive possession of the shop in dispute, the presumption would arise that he is occupying the shop as sub-tenant unless it is proved otherwise by the tenant. The plea raised by the tenant that he is jointly carrying on the business with Megh Raj having been negatived the only probable inference that can be arrived at would be that the dismissed premises has been sublet and the tenant has transferred his rights under the lease to Megh Raj. The finding of the authorities below on the issue of subletting is accordingly reversed.