NAM ADHAR JALOTA Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises which were rented out to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- with effect from January 1, 1958. His ejectment therefrom was sought inter alia on the grounds of the subletting thereof to respondent Nos. 2 to 5, and the same being used by him for the purpose other than the one for which they were leased out to him. According to the landlord, the premises being residential one, were given on rent for residence whereas they were being used for business purposes. Ramesh Chand, tenant, did not contest the ejectment application. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, contested it. It was maintained by them that it was the firm known as Jain Bodh Hosiery which was the tenant under the landlord and not Ramesh Chand, respondent, in his individual capacity. It was also pleaded that the firm, Jain Bodh Hosiery took the premises on rent at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month on April 1, 1955. At that time Shadi Lal, Ramesh Chand and Nagin Chand were the partners of the said firm. The landlord had been realising the rent thereof some times in cash and some times by cheques from the firm and issued receipts in this behalf. It was further pleaded that the premises were let out for carrying on the hosiery work since the year 1955 and that the firm was in occupation thereof since then. The learned Rent Controller found that the premises were let out to Jain Bodh Hosiery, a partnership firm and not to Ramesh Chand, respondent, in his individual capacity. It was also found that the premises were not let out for residential purposes and, therefore, the question of user thereof did not arise. The other pleas raised on behalf of the landlord were also negatived. In view of these findings, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the rent note, Exhibit P-1, and the relevant evidence on the record.