TEK CHAND Vs. KESHAV DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO occasion is provided here to warrant interference in revision with the impugned order of the Appellate Authority upholding the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of subletting.

(2.) A reference to the record shows that the shops had been let out to the tenant Sahab Ram. The case of the landlord was that it had been sublet to Hans Raj, the brother of the tenant Sahab Ram. On behalf of the tenant a partnership deed RW-3/1 was set up with a view to show that Sahab Ram and Hans Raj were in occupation of this shop and were doing business there together. It is the clear finding of both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that this partnership deed was not a genuine one. In dealing with this matter, it would be pertinent to note the statement of RW-6 Tek Chand the son of the tenant Sahab Ram deceased that he was an income-tax payee but he had admitted that he had not shown any income from the business being run in the shop in his income-tax return. What is more, no accounts of the partnership were produced by either Tek Chand or Hans Raj nor is there any documentary evidence to corroborate what purports to be the investment of Sahab Ram in the business being run by the shop under this partnership. The statement of Hans Raj, the brother of tenant Sahab Ram is also significant, namely, that no accounts of the partnership were being maintained, even though according to the partnership deed, regular accounts of the partnership business were required to be maintained. The partnership deed further provides that the accounts would be settled every year. No such statement of accounts is forthcoming.

(3.) OCTROI and Tehbazari have also been shown to have been paid by Hans Raj and not Sahab Ram, as would be evident from Exs.AW.2/1 and AW.3/1.