SHANKER DASS SHARMA Vs. HARISH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but allowed in appeal.

(2.) THE demised premises are a residential house situated at Raikot, District Ludhiana. It belonged to one Kishori Lal. He rented it out on March 30, 1956, under the entries in the petition writer's register, Exhibit R.1, to Shankar Dass, tenant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 14. On April 28, 1959, the said Kishori Lal gifted the said house to Harish Chander, the present landlord. After the death of the said Kishori Lal, Harish Chander filed the ejectment application against the alleged tenant Atam Parkash primarily on the ground that he had sublet the same to his brother Shankar Dass. According to the landlord, he rented out the premises to Atam Parkash vide rent note dated March 25, 1960. Exhibit A.1, on a monthly rent of Rs. 14 but the premises were being occupied by Shankar Dass. The arrears of rent were also claimed in the ejectment application, which were tendered by Shankar Dass on the first date of hearing. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent, it was pleaded that, in fact, Shankar Dass had taken the house, in dispute, on rent from Kishori Lal on March 31, 1956 and the tenancy commenced in his favour on April 1, 1956. Since then he was in occupation of the house as a tenant. Atam Parkash denied that he ever executed any rent note, Exhibit A.1, in favour of Harish Chander landlord. He also pleaded that he never occupied the premises and that it was Shanker Dass who had been in occupation thereof since the year 1956 and had been paying the rent to the landlord throughout this period. It was further denied that Atam Parkash was ever a tenant on the demised premises under Harish Chander, landlord. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that it was Shankar Dass who was tenant on the premises, in dispute and that Atam Parkash had nothing to do there-with. He was never a tenant thereon and the rent note, Exhibit A.1, as alleged by the landlord, was never executed by him. All the other pleas raised by the landlord were also negatived. Consequently, the eviction petition was dismissed. In appeal, the appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of subletting. It came to the conclusion that the premises were let out to Atam Parkash vide rent note, Exhibit A. 1 and since the premises were admitted by Shankar Dass to be in his possession, it was a case of subletting. The findings of Rent Controller on other issues were affirmed. In view of the above finding, the eviction order was passed against the tenants. Dissatisfied with the same, Shankar Dass has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel of the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Appellate Authority is wholly misconceived, wrong and illegal. The finding of the Rent Controller that Shankar Dass was a tenant on the demised premises throughout was correct. The same has reversed by the Appellate Authority arbitrarily on surmises and conjectures. From the documentary evidence on the record, Shankar Dass has been in possession of the premises, in question, throughout. Since the house-tax was imposed in the year 1960-61, it is Shankar Dass who is entered as a tenant on the promises in the Municipal record. The name of Atam Parkash appears nowhere as tenant therein. Atam Parkash came in the witness-box and categorically stated that he never occupied the premises and that the rent note, Exhibit A.1, did not bear his signatures. The landlord produced Kishori Lal the scribes as A.W. 2. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the copy, Exhibit R.1 was the correct coy of his register. He also stated that when the rent note dated March 30, 1956, was scribed, Shankar Dass took possession of the disputed house as a tenant. According to him Shankar Dass had vacated the demised premises prior to Exhibit A.1, executed by Atam Parkash. However there is no evidence on the record in this behalf. Moreover, Harish Chander, landlord, did not file any ejectment application during the life time of Kishori Lal who had gifted him the house, in dispute. Since Shankar Dass was inducted as a tenant by Kishori Lal and Harish Chander, landlord knew about it, so it appears, no eviction petition was filed by the landlord when Kishori Lal was alive. It is only after his death that the present eviction petition was filed on the allegations inter alia that it was Atam Parkash who was the tenant on the demised premises and that he had sublet the same to Shankar Dass. Harish Chander, landlord, himself appeared as A.W. 4. When it was put to him in his cross-examination as to whether the premises were ever occupied by Shankar Dass or who occupied the same as a tenant prior to March 25, 1960, his reply was :-