KAPUR CBAND Vs. GOVARDHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, accepting the appeal of the landlord-respondent and passing the order of ejectment against the tenant - petitioner on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent and a part of the premises having been sublet by the tenant-petitioner Kapur Chand in favour of Wazir Chand.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the house in dispute belonged to one Girdhari Lal son of Manohar Lal to the extent of one-half share and the remaining half was owned by Goverdhan Lal, landlord-respondent. Kapur Cband, Petitioner, took one half-share of the house in dispute on rent by means of a rent note dated May 22, 1941 from Girdhari Lal and others on a monthly rent of Rs. 2.50. This rent note was marked as 'A' by the Rent Controller and was not exhibited as it was held to be inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, but the same was held to be admissible in evidence and was exhibited as 'PX' in appeal. Girdhari Lal sold his one fourth share in the house in question, to Goverdhan Lal on October 28, 1967. Thus, he became owner to the extent of three fourth share and Manohar Lal was left with one-fourth share. The ejectment application was filed both by Goverdhan Lal and Manohar Lal against Kapur Chand and Wazir Chand. Ejectment was sought on a number of grounds, but for the purpose of this revision petition, the relevant ground is that the tenant-petitioner, Kapur Chand, had contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and, therefore, the question of payment of rent did not arise. The Rent Controller held that the rent note marked 'A' was fictitious and the notes A-1 to A-9 on the back of this rent note were also fictitious. It was further held that the execution of this lease deed had not been proved and that even if this rent note was held to be proved, the same was inadmissible in evidence being unregistered. The ejectment application was thus dismissed by the Rent Controller. Appeal was filed by the respondent-landlord which was accepted by the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur and it was held that the tenant-petitioner, Kapur Chand, had taken the house in dispute on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 2.50 by means of the lease deed dated May 22, 1961, Exhibit PX, that the said lease deed did not require registration as the tenancy was on a monthly basis, that the execution of the lease deed was proved and that the arrears of rent had not been paid by Kapur Chand, tenant. It was also held that Kapur Chand had sublet a part of the premises to Wazir Chand without the consent of the landlord. Thus the order of ejectment was passed against the present petitioners. It is against this order of the learned Appellate Authority that this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. J.N. Kaushal, the learned Senior Advocate, counsel for the petitioners has contended that the finding of the Appellate Authority that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondents is vitiated because it is based on a wrong and erroneous finding that the Rent Controller had held that the execution of the lease deed was not proved. I have gone through the judgment of the Rent Controller. It was clearly held by him that the execution of the rent note was not proved and the same was held to be fictitious. But the finding of the Appellate Authority is not based solely on this erroneous conclusion about the finding of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority ha s considered the entire evidence led in the case and has come to an independent conclusion that the execution of the lease deed, Exhibit PX, was duly proved. It further came to the conclusion that the payments of rent as evidenced by the writings, A-l to A-9 on the back of the lease deed were also proved. The Appellate Authority came to the firm conclusion that the findings of the Rent Controller in this respect were vitiated and could not be sustained. This finding is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be interfered with in revision.