CHAMPA DEVI Vs. NAND RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 121 and 122 of 1976, as the questions involved are the same in both the revision petitions.

(2.) BOTH the landladies Champa Devi and Simla Devi who are the sisters, filed two separate applications to eject the tenant Nand Ram from the ahata, in dispute, which was rented out to him vide rent note, Exhibit A-1 dated January 1, 1965, for a period of one year at the rate of Rs. 180/- per month. Separate rent notes were written in favour of each landlady. According to the recitals in the rent note, Exhibit A-1, advance rent for six months was paid at the time of the execution of the rent note. Both the landladies had one half share in the ahata, in dispute. Nand Ram tenant-respondent, was in arrears of rent for the period from April 1, 1968 to March 31, 1971, along with the arrears of house-tax. The ejectment from the demised premises was sought interalia on the ground that the said Nand Ram had sublet the premises to one Om Parkash, respondent No. 2. The other grounds taken for seeking eviction in the ejectment application were the change of user of the demised premises and that the landladies required the premises for their own use and occupation after constructing the same. In the written statement filed on behalf of Nand Ram, respondent, he admitted having taken on rent the premises in question from the two landladies, but pleaded that on account of his illness he could not transact any business therein. He therefore, vacated the premises after the expiry of six months when he delivered back possession thereof to the landladies who subsequently rented out the same to Om parkash, respondent No. 2. He, thus, contended that he had no concern with the premises since then. In the separate written statement filed on behalf of Om Parkash, respondent, it was pleaded that the premises, in question, were rented out by Champa Devi, landlady through her husband and attorney Faquir Chand to Nand Ram, respondent, at the rate of Rs. 180/- per annum on January 1, 1965, who on account of his illness did not do any business therein and vacated the same after six months and delivered back possession thereof to the landlady. It was further averred that the premises, in question, were a shop and not a residential building. It was also asserted that upon vacation of the premises by Nand Ram, respondent, she rented them out to him at the rate of Rs. 175 per annum from July 1, 1965, through a written rent note which was in her possession. Thus, according to him, he was in occupation of the premises, as a tenant under her and had been paying the rent thereof accordingly. Entries regarding those payments existed in his cash book and the same were signed by the husband and attorney of the landlady Faquir Chand. It was also stated that initially, he started a coal depot in the said premises under the name and style of M/s Pirthi Chand Om Parkash. Subsequently, on April 1, 1967, Prithi Chand separated and since then, he himself is running the business therein under the name and style of Om Parkash and Sons. He had also raised certain construction thereon at his own costs with the consent of the landlady. he offered to tender the arrears of rent for the period from April 1, 1968 to April 30, 1970, along with interest and costs. Thus, it was asserted that he was a direct tenant on the premises under the landlady and the question of subletting thereof by Nand Ram, respondent, to him did not arise. The other allegations made by the landladies were also controverted. On trial, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the ground of subletting the demised premises by Nand Ram to Om Parkash, respondent, was clearly proved and, therefore, the eviction order was passed. The other pleas taken by the landladies in the ejectment applications were found against them. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the finding with regard to the subletting of the dismissed premises was erroneous and was not warranted by the evidence on the record. Consequently, the ejectment applications were dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, both the landladies have filed these two separate revision petitions.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the whole approach of the Appellate Authority is misconceived, wrong and illegal and that the finding arrived at on the question of subletting is based on surmises and conjectures. The entire evidence has been discussed in detail and it has been found as a fact that from a perusal of the disputed signatures of Faqir Chand under the entries in the cash book with his specimen signatures which do not tally, it was hard to believe that Faquir Chand would have been appending his signatures under those entries in token of the receipt of the payments. It has been further observed by the Appellate Authority that in the normal course Om Parkash, respondent, would have got executed from Faquir Chand the receipts in token of the payment of the rent and not secured his signatures under each entry of the cash book to that effect. It seems that in order to create evidence of written consent of the landlady to his occupation of the premises in question, he (Om Parkash, respondent), fabricated his signatures under some ingenious advice. Having made these observations, the Appellate Authority found that it could not be deduced therefrom that those cash book entries were also forged when the above discussed evidence and circumstances unmistakably indicated that the payments of rent for the period from July 1, 1965 to March 31, 1968, were made by Om Parkash, respondent, to the landlady. It was not essential for Om Parkash, respondent, to produce his ledger books for he did not want to fasten any liability on the landlady on the basis of cash book entries; rather he merely wanted to prove the payments of rent made by him to her in respect of these entires and those entries stood amply proved by the evidence and circumstances discussed above. Thus, it is quite evident that the whole approach of the Appellate Authority was most unwarranted and misconceived. Om Parkash, respondent produced those entires to prove the payments of rent to Faqir Chand the husband of Champa Devi, landlady. The said Faqir Chand denied having received any such payment of rent. Once it is found that the signatures of Faqir Chand were forged under some ingenious advice, then, under no circumstances the said entries could be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the payment of rent vide the said entries was proved.