RAMAN KUMAR Vs. CHET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('Act' for short) against the order dated 5.9.2005 passed by the learned Appellate Authority under the Act whereby the appeal of the landlord-respondent against the order dated 15.1.2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller has been accepted and the order of the Rent Controller been set aside. Besides, ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the shop in question has been ordered with the direction to hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord- respondent.

(2.) THE landlord-respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for the ejectment of the tenants-petitioners from the shop forming part of property Unit No. 1302, Haibowal Khurd, Street No. 4, Ludhiana as detailed in the head note of the petition. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenant-petitioner No. 2 had not paid rent from 1.5.1991 at the rate of Rs. 700/-. Besides, he had sub-let the premises to his son Raman Kumar, tenant- petitioner No. 1 without permission of the landlord-respondent. The other ground for ejectment was that the tenant-petitioner No. 2 had ceased to occupy the premises and had changed the user of the shop. The landlord had rented the premises to the tenant-petitioner No. 2 only for running a tea-stall. However, the son of the tenant-petitioner No. 2 in connivance with petitioner No. 2 had taken the premises and was running a hardware store under the name and style of M/s Shakti Hardware Store. It was also alleged that the tenant-petitioner No. 2 and his son had damaged the premises. On notice, the tenant-petitioner No. 2 contested the petition and stated that the petition filed by the landlord was misconceived and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the landlord. In fact, Raman Kumar (petitioner No. 1), it was stated, is the direct tenant of the landlord-respondent at monthly rent of Rs. 250/- and not at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month as had been claimed by the landlord. It also denied that the tenant-petitioner No. 2 has sub-let the demised premises to tenant-petitioner No. 1. In fact, tenant-petitioner No. 1 was a direct tenant. The other averments were also denied. The tenant- petitioner No. 1 in his separate written statement stated that he was tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- per month and the rent upto 1994 stood paid to the landlord. Besides, the relations between the landlord and the petitioner No. 1 were stated to be good. However, the landlord was not issuing any receipt. It was also stated that the terms and conditions of the tenancy were settled orally coupled with possession. The rent w.e.f. 1.4.1994 to 31.8.1994 @ Rs. 250/- per month along with interest, house tax and costs was tendered for payment to the landlord on 8.11.1994. The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence and material on record held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the landlord and petitioner No. 2. Therefore, it was held that landlord was not entitled to seek ejectment of petitioner No. 1 who was held to be a direct tenant under the landlord. Consequently, it was also held that the landlord had failed to prove the fact that petitioner No. 2 had sub-let the premises to petitioner No. 1. In fact, petitioner No. 1 had offered the tender of rent to the landlord-respondent which was refused by him. Accordingly, it was held that the landlord was also not entitled to seek ejectment of the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent. The ejectment on the ground of change of user also did not find favour with the learned Rent Controller. The shop in the name and style of M/s Shakti Hardware Store was found to have been running for quite some time. It was held that ejectment on the ground of impairment of the building was not made out. All the issues were decided against the landlord and in favour of the respondent. As a consequence thereof, the petition was dismissed. In appeal filed by the landlord-respondent, the Appellate Authority, however, held that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the landlord and petitioner No. 2. Consequently, the findings of the learned Rent Controller in this regard were reversed and it was held that petitioner No. 2 was liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent and house tax. Besides, it was held that the petitioner No. 2 had sub-let the demised premises to petitioner No. 1 without the permission of the landlord-respondent. Resultantly, the findings of the learned Rent Controller with regard to sub-letting the premises were also reversed. The petitioner No. 1 was also held to have failed to prove himself to be a direct tenant under the landlord in the premises in question at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. Besides, it was held that the premises in question were let-out to petitioner No. 2 for the purpose of running of tea- stall whereas petitioner No. 1 had taken the stand that he was carrying on business of Shakti Hardware Store in the demised shop. As such, it was held that the tenant had changed the user of the shop and consequently the findings of the learned Rent Controller in this regard were also reversed. The Appellate Authority thereby ordered the ejectment of the petitioner which order, as already noticed, is assailed in this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned Appellate Authority erred in law and facts in reversing the findings of the learned Rent Controller. Besides, it has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective. It is contended that the Appellate Authority has failed to take into account that the landlord-respondent had miserably failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and petitioner No. 2. Besides, it has come on record that there exists a writing with regard to the tenancy. However, the landlord-respondent failed to produce any such writing to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and petitioner No. 2. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and petitioner No. 1, it is stated, stands established as petitioner No. 1 is in physical possession of the demised premises as a direct tenant of the respondent. The bills, cash memos, Exs. R.1 to R.4, it is contended, show that the shop has been running in the name and style of M/s Shakti Hardware Store by petitioner No. 1. The electricity bills and receipts Exs.RW-5/1 to RW-5/12 have been produced by petitioner No. 1 and relate to the year 1982 to 1987 which apparently show the possession of petitioner No. 1 in the shop in question prior to June 1988 when the respondent alleges that the tenancy commenced. The findings of the Appellate Authority as regards sub- letting the premises and also change of user, it is contended, are without any basis or substance.

(3.) THE findings as regards the sub-letting of the shop by petitioner No. 2 to his son (petitioner No. 1) without the consent of the landlord-respondent was also held to be established. Besides, Raman Kumar (petitioner No. 1), it was observed, had changed the user of the demised premises as well. The petitioner No. 1 in his written reply, it was observed, had concealed the date on which he was allegedly inducted as a direct tenant in the demised premises by the landlord-respondent. Had petitioner No. 1 been actually in possession of the shop as a direct tenant he would have disclosed the date, month or year of his tenancy. This, the petitioner No. 1 has failed to disclose. Therefore, the ground of sub-letting and change of user were also found to be established against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, laid considerable emphasis on the electricity bills Ex.RW-5/1 to Ex.RW-5/12 to contend that these bills have been produced by petitioner No. 1 and relate to the period 1982 to 1987. During the course of hearing a photostat copy of the said bills was shown which records the name of the consumer as Chet Singh (respondent). The fact that these have been produced by petitioner No. 1 is hardly of any consequence as the electricity charges are paid by the tenant and petitioner No. 1 being the son of petitioner No. 2, who is the tenant, must have given the bills to his son, who produced the same in Court. Therefore, the mere fact that petitioner No. 1 has produced the bills is hardly of any consequence.