KISHORI LAL Vs. KIRPA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SO far as this petition for revision is concerned, there is no dispute on facts. The dispute relates to a shop situate in Nawanshahr district Jullundur. This shop was rented out by Kishori Lal to Kirpa Singh on the 10th March, 1943. Kirpa Singh executed the rent note, Exhibit A. 1. It is provided in the rent note that the tenancy would be for a period of one day less than one year that is, the tenancy had to come to an end on the 9th of March, 1944. There is no evidence and it is not disputed that from the 9th of March, 1944 to the date of the application for eviction (3rd December 1963), no rent has been paid to Kishori Lal. It may also be stated that the tenant had not denied the landlord's title to the, shop in dispute.

(2.) THE present petition for eviction was filed by Kishori Lal on the basis of Exhibit A. 1, on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent. The tenant did not tender the arrears of tent at the first hearing, but took the position that he was not the tenant of Kishori Lal, but he was the tenant of Murari Lal, the real brother of Kishori Lal. To whom he was paying rent. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have come to a concurrent decision that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between Kishori Lal and Kirpa Singh. The relationship which was created by Exhibit A. 1 came to an end on the 9th March, 1944 and it has not been established that there was a fresh tenancy created between them thereafter. So far as the legal position is concerned, the matter admits of no doubt. In Banwari Lal v. Mt. Hussaini and another : A.I.R. 1940 Lah. 410, wherein the facts were somewhat similar and the tenancy was for a fixed term, it was held, by Tek Chand J., with whom Dalip Singh J agreed as follows: -

(3.) IN order to succeed in his application for eviction of the tenant, the petitioner had to prove that the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties did exist. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have come to a concurrent decision that the aforesaid relationship does not exist. In the circumstances of this case, it must be held for the reasons already recorded that the decision of both the Authorities is correct and no fault can be found with the same. It may be that the tenant Kirpa Singh has colluded with Murari Lal, real brother of Kishori Lal, because he has clearly stated that he is paying rent to Murari Lal. But he does not go further and say that the rent to Murari Lal is being paid on behalf of Kishori Lal. Moreover, no attempt was made to prove that Kishori Lal and Murari Lal were members of joint Hindu family. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that Murari Lal is receiving rent on behalf of Kishori Lal and therefore, there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.