SUKHDARSHAN KUMAR Vs. FIRM TEK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) TEK Chand (now deceased) filed the ejectment application against his tenant Firm Tek Chand Sant Ram alleging that the said firm has sublet the premises in dispute to Hem Raj respondent No. 2. It was alleged that the premises in dispute were let out to the said firm vide rent note Exhibit A.1 dated August 11, 1961, on a monthly rent of Rs. 110. According to the landlord, the said firm sublet the premises to Hem Raj respondent No. 2 in September, 1966, on annual rent of Rs. 1,500 and, therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted. Sant Ram filed the written statement on behalf of the firm. He admitted that Tek Chand was the owner of the shop in dispute and it was taken, on rent from him vide rent note Exhibit A.1. He further stated that he has sublet the shop in dispute to Hem Raj who was in occupation of the same. Hem Raj filed a separate statement and contested the application on the ground that Tek Chand was not the landlord of the shop in dispute. He is the father of Sant Ram (respondent-tenant). They constitute joint Hindu Family and the shop in dispute is joint Hindu family property. He further alleged that in fact there was no firm in existence, as alleged by the landlord. Even if any firm was constituted, it was constituted merely to avoid income-tax. Thus the question of execution of any rent note by Sant Ram in favour of his father Tek Chand does not arise. He further stated that the rent note Exhibit A-I alleged to have been executed by Sant Ram in favour of Tek Chand is fictitious. As a matter of fact, Sant Ram is the owner landlord of the shop in dispute and he (tenant) took on lease the shop in dispute from Sant Ram in September, 1966, at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per annum and since then he is in occupation of the same as a tenant of Sant Ram. The learned Rent Controller found that although it is proved from the evidence on the record that firm Tek Chand Sant Ram took on rent the shop in dispute from Tek Chand landlord, but it is not established from the evidence on the record that the firm Tek Chand Sant Ram further sublet the same to Hem Raj respondent No. 2. In view of this finding, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that Hem Raj was not a sub-tenant of the firm because no firm was existing at the time the shop was given on lease to Hem Raj by one of the co-sharers i.e. Sant Ram. Dissatisfied with the same, the grand-sons of Tek Chand in whose favour Will was made by Tek Chand have filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. Admittedly, Tek Chand (now deceased) landlord and Sant Ram are father and son. It is also not disputed that both Tek Chand and Sant Ram were the owners of the shop in dispute. By a clever device, Tek Chand let out the shop in dispute to the firm Tek Chand-Sant Ram vide rent note Exhibit A.1 dated August 11, 1961. The mere fact that the two other persons were also the partners of the said firm was of no consequence. Moreover, Hem Raj was inducted as a tenant in September, 1966, at the rent of Rs. 1,500 per annum. Sant Ram being the owner of the shop in dispute to the extent of one-half, was entitled to let out the same and, therefore, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the petitioners that it was a case of subletting by the firm. As a matter of fact the firm as much never came into existence and even if it came into existence there is nothing on the record to show that it existed in the year J966 when it was rented out to Hem Raj. It is clear case where father Tek Chand and his son Sant Ram colluded in order to eject the tenant Hem Raj. In the circumstances I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below to warrant interference in revision petition. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.