KESRI DASS JAIN Vs. AHMED HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority whereby the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller was set aside and the ejectment petition was dismissed.

(2.) IT is the case of the landlord that the premises in dispute were let out to Ali Hussain and Faqir Chand on 29.10.1956 for their business. Ali Hussain died on 14.2.1977 and Faqir Chand left possession of shop and started business in another shop. The petitioner sought ejectment, inter-alia, on the ground that Ali Hussain and Faqir Chand have not paid arrears of rent from 1.9.1975 and they have sub-let shop in dispute to Ahmed Hussain-respondent No. 9. The petition was contested by some of the legal heirs of Faqir Chand. A reply was filed to the effect that Ali Hussain and Faqir Chand took shop in dispute on rent and Faqir Chand separated his business from Ali Hussain. Thereafter, Ali Hussain who was old man joined respondent No. 9 to help him in business in shop in dispute. However, it was the stand of respondent No. 9-Ahmed Hussain that Ali Hussain was tenant in the shop in dispute before the year 1949 and thereafter, Faqir Chand joined Ali Hussain which came to end in the year 1960. Ali Hussain died on 14.2.1977 and respondent Nos. 1 to 8 are the legal heirs of Ali Hussain, deceased. It is the case of respondent No. 9 that he became tenant in the shop in dispute at the monthly rent of Rs. 25/- in the year 1960 and has been paying rent to Kesari Dass, petitioner after obtaining his signature on the receipt in the accounts book. On the basis of said pleadings, the parties went on trial.

(3.) HOWEVER , the First Appellate Court reversed the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and found that Kesari Dass having admitted receipts Ex.R1 to Ex.R25 from the year 1961 till the year 1969 alongwith accounts books produced by Ahmed Hussain to the effect that Ahmed Hussain was a tenant under Kesari Dass. It considered that the accounts books do not contain the name of the person of the accounts yet it found that Faqir Chand when appeared as RW3 was not suggested that books of the firm Faqir Chand Ali Hussain had gone into the possession of Ahmed Hussain. Similarly, Ajander Hussain, RW6 son of Ali Hussain was also not suggested that the books produced by Ahmed Hussain belong to Ali Hussain. Thus, the Court found that Ahmed Hussain has produced such books of accounts and receipts who was doing active business in shop since 1960. The First Appellate Court also found that AW1 Ganga Sagar Jain has admitted that Ahmed Hussain has been running business in the shop in dispute since the year 1960 though he has stated that he has joint business with Ali Hussain. The Court found that Ahmed Hussain is doing business in the shop in dispute since the year 1960. From the statement of Mohd. Jamil, Faqir Chand, Niranjan Singh and Ajander Hussain and even the certificate of the registration Exs. R43, R44 and RW7/A shows that the shop was registered with shop inspector to start business on 1.1.1961. Though there is a different business mentioned in the document yet the Court found that from the testimony of the witness produced by the landlord himself that Ahmed Hussain has remained in the premises as it is not the case of landlord that Ahmed Hussain owned other shop than the shop in question. On the basis of statement of Ahmed Hussain, they found that, in fact, there is no discrepancy, as earlier he was running the cloth business but in the year 1969, he switched over to shoe business. The Appellate Authority has also found that in the house tax assessment register, the name of Ahmed Hussain has been scored off and changed to Ali Hussain. Still further, the landlord has not produced his accounts books though he owned 15 shops and maintained the accounts books. Consequently, the Appellate Authority found that Ahmed Hussain is direct tenant under the petitioner.