NARINDER MOHAN Vs. JAGMOHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the impugned orders dated 14.12.2004 and 15.02.2006, passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, whereby the rent application filed by the respondent-landlord has been allowed and the petitioner-tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the shop in question on the ground of subletting.

(2.) The case of the landlord was that he rented out the premises in question to one Prem Sagar in the year 1980 and had obtained Kabuliatnama from him. However, in the year 1985, the aforesaid Prem Sagar had named his business as "Rama Garments" and requested him to issue the receipt in the name of Rama Garments. Later, it transpired that he sublet the shop in question further to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was that he was a direct tenant and the Kabuliatnama was a fake document created by Prem Sagar in collusion with the respondent. Both the authorities below, however, noticed that Prem Sagar was the father-in-law of the brother of the petitioner and therefore, there was no occasion for him to act in collusion with the landlord and give a false Kabuliatnama since he had no relationship with the landlord. It was primarily on this ground that both the authorities below held that tenancy was granted in the name of Prem Sagar and since the petitioner claimed to be a direct tenant, subletting had taken place. Both the courts also considered the other pieces of evidence like assessment register pertaining to the period from 1994-95 onward where entries regarding ownership of Rama garments was shown as Prem Sagar.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that parting of possession for consideration has not been proved. In my opinion this would pale into insignificance when the petitioner has claimed that he was a direct tenant from the date of inception. Learned counsel for the petitioner has again argued that Kabuliatnama is a fake document created by Prem Sagar in collusion with the landlord but has not denied the fact that he is father-in-law of the brother of the petitioner.