MULKH RAJ Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE premises is dispute in house-cum-shop in Lakkar Bazar, Ludhiana. It was owned by Sita Ram (three-fourth share) and Kundan Lal (one-fourth share). Amar Nath respondent is the son of Sita Ram. Kundan Lal has three sons, namely, Lal Chand respondent, Ram Nath respondent and Kulwant Rai. Dharma Vir and Raj Kumar respondents are the sons of Kulwant Rai.

(2.) SITA Ram died in August, 1948 and Kundan Lal in November 1949. On February 7, 1948, Lal Chand respondent allegedly took the premises in dispute on rent at Rs. 20 per month from Sita Ram vide rent deed (Exhibit A.1) which was signed both by Lal Chand and Sita Ram. After the death of Kundan Lal in November, 1949, Lal Chand respondent also inherited a share in the premises in dispute. In March, 1953, Lal Chand rented out the premises in dispute (or the shop portion) to Mulkh Raj. In March, 1973, Amar Nath, Dharam Vir and Raj Kumar (respondents Nos. 1 to 4) filed ejectment petition against Mulkh Raj petitioner and Lal Chand respondent on the grounds of non-payment of rent since April, 1970 and sub-letting by Lal Chand respondent in favour of Mulkh Raj petitioner.

(3.) LAL Chand has appeared as a witness for the respondents. He proved the rent deed Exhibit A.1 which was objected to by the petitioner. He further stated that he was paying three-fourth share of the rent received by him at the rate of Rs. 20 per month to Amar Nath respondent and the remaining to Dharam Vir, Raj Kumar and Ram Nath. He admitted that he was in arrears of rent claimed by the respondents with effect from April, 1970. He did not obtain permission from Amar Nath respondent when he sublet the shop to Mulkh Raj petitioner. He denied that the ejectment application has been got filed by him nor did he tell the petitioner that he was letting out the property to him as owner. He admitted to have received rent from the petitioner till September, 1973 (The statement of Mulkh Raj was recorded on September 3, 1973). Amar Nath respondent also appeared as a witness and he stated that Lal Chand had given the shop on rent to Mulkh Raj petitioner without his consent. Lal Chand was in arrears since April 1, 1970. In his cross-examination he stated that one room and one shop had been given on rent to Lal Chand.