S.S. JAIN SABHA Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition, against whom the eviction application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but in appeal the ejectment order was passed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) SURINDER landlord sought ejectment of his tenant Banarsi Dass on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from 30.3.1971 and on the ground of subletting by Banarsi Dass to S.S. Jain Sabha respondent No. 2. It was averred in the petition that the building in dispute was originally let out by Sohan Lal to Bansari Dass tenant at the rate of Rs. 125/- per annum and in this respect rent note Ex.PA was executed. Later on in partition of the joint family this property fell to the share of Surinder Kumar landlord-petitioner. Banarsi Dass respondent then executed a fresh rent note Ex. PB on 30.3.1965 in favour of Surinder Kumar whereby he agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 100/- per annum. It was stipulated therein that without the consent of the landlord the tenant will not sublet the property. In spite of that tenant has sublet the same to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were running a school under the name and style of S.M. Jain Model School, Bhatinda. Joint written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents. It was maintained that the building was originally taken on rent for the purpose of a school by Banarsi Dass and the school was started under the name and style of S.S. Jain Sabha School which was initially managed by Banarsi Dass. Later on the management was taken over by S.S. Jain Sabha (Registered) and the name of the school was changed to S.M. Jain Model School, Bhatinda. It was denied that Banarsi Dass had sublet the building to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. According to the written statement, from the inception of the tenancy the building was taken by Banarsi Dass for the purpose of running a school and the school is being run uptill now. However, the management has been taken over by the S.S. Jain Sabha (Regd.). On the first date of hearing, Banarsi Dass tendered the arrears of rent which were accepted by the landlord under protest. The Rent Controller found that Banarsi Dass was not the tenant of the premises in dispute and he had not sublet the same to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Since, according to the Rent Controller, the arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing, no ejectment order could be passed on that ground. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of subletting. It was found that it was Banarsi Dass to whom the building was given in his person capacity and on behalf of any school. Now, admittedly, Banarsi Dass tenant has nothing to do either with the school or its management and was a broker by profession and therefore it was a clear case of subletting. In view of that finding, the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the S.S. Jain Sabha (Regd) has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on record, I do not find any merit in that petition. In both the rent notes Exs.P.A. and P.B. there is no mention that the building was given on rent to Banarsi Dass for running a school Banarsi Dass admitted his signatures on the rent notes but maintained that his signatures were obtained on blank forms and the same were go filled in later on by Sohan Lal or Surinder Kumar. He could not furnish any explanation as to under what circumstances he had put his signatures on blank forms. The Appellate Authority was not convinced with the explanation offered by him and held that these rent notes were duly executed by him. Not only that, there is no evidence on the record to show that school management ever paid any rent of the demised premises to the landlord Sohan Lal or Surinder Kumar. In case the building was taken on rent for running a school and it was the school management which was paying the rent then there must have been some entries showing payment of rent on behalf of the school. No accounts were produced on behalf of the school to prove this fact. Under these circumstances the Appellate Authority rightly observed that the fact that the respondents intentionally withheld the accounts raised a presumption that had the same been produced then they would not have been able to support their case.