KEWAL KRISHAN Vs. MAST RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed an application for the ejectment of the respondent under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) from the shop alleged to have been leased out on January 1, 1971 on a rent of Rs. 80 per month and from a room leased out on May 1, 1972 on a monthly rent of Rs.25 on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. The respondent denied that any shop or room was rented out on the alleged dates and, instead, pleaded that the shop was taken on lease by him from Gorakh Nath, the father of the petitioner, on January 1, 1963 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,750 vide rent-note dated January 24, 1963 and the room on a monthly rent of Rs. 12 vide rent-note dated February 22, 1969. He also pleaded that the petitioner alone, in the absence of the other heirs of the deceased Gorakh Nath, was not competent to maintain the ejectment application.

(2.) Though as many as seven issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties, but in this revision we are concerned only with issue No.2 relating to the rate of rent of the demised premises. The tenant had deposited the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 27.50 per month for the shop and Rs. 12 per month for the room on the first date of hearing. The case set up by him was upheld both by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority resulting in the dismissal of the ejectment application. Still dissatisfied, the landlord has come up in this revision.

(3.) The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have recorded a concurrent finding on the rate, of the rent, but it has to be reversed being based on irrelevant and fabricated rent notes. So far as the shop is concerned, the respondent relied on rent-note (Exhibit R-1) alleged to have been written by the respondent in favour of Gorakh Nath on January 24, 1963. Ram Parshad (R.W.1) the writer of this rent note admitted that Gorakh Nath was not present when the rent-note was scrieed by him. The original rent-note has not been produced and Exhibit R-I is the entry in the register of the Petition Writer relating to the said feat note. The entry does not bear the signatures of either Kewal Krishan who is stated to be present at that time or of Gorakh Nath. From the statement of this witness it is also evident that Gorakh Nath never put his signatures on the rent-note in token of its acceptance. The rent-note, therefore, was nothing but an admission by the respondent in his own favour and, as such, not admissible in evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent, however relying on Asa Ram and another v. Mst. Ram Kali and another, 1958 AIR(SC) 183 urged that a lease can be proved from a Kabulist (rent-note) executed by the tenant. Reliance on the said decision, however, is wholly misplaced because in that case the lesser had not only accepted the rent-note but also received the rent regularly from the tenant. On the other hand, in the present case their is no evidence that Gorakh Nath had accepted the rent-note or received any rent from the alleged tenant. That apart, the other circumstances also go to show that the entry (Exhibit R-1) is nothing but a fabricated document. According to this entry the shop was let out to Jagdish Ram and Mast Ram. The ejectment application had been filed only against Mast Ram. No objection was taken by the respondent that the shop was leased out to him and his brother Jagdish Ram and that ejectment application was not competent against him alone. The business which is run in the demised premises also belongs to Mast Ram. as is evident from the licence which is only in his name. Jagdish Ram is running another shop separately the licence of which is in his name alone In the Property Registered of the Municipality relating to the year 1967 to 1972 the respondent and Jagdish Ram are shown to be in possession of different shops. It is, therefore, obvious that this entry has been manipulated by the respondent in connivance with the Ram Parshad. Petition Writer, who is his tenant and sitting in one of the adjoining shops. The case set up by the petitioner that the shop was let out only in the year 1971 stands fully corroborated from the licence (Echihit A 1) which was taken by the respondent for the first time in the year 1971. If the respondent had been running the shop prior to that year, he would have certainly taken the licence earlier both under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments; Act, 1958. Ganpat Ram (A.W.1) produced by the petitioner has categorically stated that the respondent never got any licence prior to the year 1571 for the business being run in the shop in dispute. The finding of the authorities below that the shop in dispute was let out with effect from January 1, 1963, being wholly erroneous and based on inadmissible evidence, is set aside and it is theld that the demised shop was lot out in the year 1971 as pleaded by the petitioner.