HANS RAJ Vs. NAVAL KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlords who are the successors-in-interest of the original landlord Ram Parshad sought the ejectment of the tenant Hans Raj from the demised premises inter alia on the ground that he had sublet the same in favour of his brother Surinder Kumar without their consent. The premises were let out to the tenant vide rent note Exhibit R.W. 7/1, on a monthly rent of Rs. 30. Admittedly, the said rent note was executed by Hans Raj in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the joint Hindu family as now claimed in these proceedings. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that he and his younger brother Surinder Kumar along with three of his other brothers were living in the disputed property as members of the joint Hindu family and that he was the Karta/Manager of the joint Hindu family. Thus, according to the tenant, all the members of the joint Hindu family were the tenants on the demised premises and the question of subletting the same by him did not arise. The learned Rent Controller on the appreciation of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that since the landlord had proved by cogent evidence that Hans Raj tenant, had parted with the legal possession of the premises to his brother Surinder Kumar, it was for him to dispel that Surinder Kumar was occupying the demised premises not as a sub-tenant, but as a member of the joint Hindu family. The premises, in question, were let to Hans Raj in his individual capacity and therefore, he could not be allowed to travel beyond the scope of the rent note. Exhibit A.W. 7/1 because whatever is alleged and deposed by the tenant is outside the scope of the rent deed and is hit by the provisions of section 92 of the Evidence Act. Since Hans Raj had parted with the legal possession of the demised premises to Surinder Kumar it could safely be said that he has sublet the demised premises to him. In view of this finding, the eviction order was passed against him. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller with the observations that Hans Raj, tenant, had constructed a new house on the plot which was purchased by him. Even the building plan thereto was sanctioned in his name. Thus, his claim that it was a joint Hindu family property was belied. It has also been observed that apart from the above, it was highly unbelievable that the families of five brothers were keeping residence in the demised premises consisting of one bala khana, verandah, kitchen and a bath-room only. The entire stand taken by Hans Raj was baseless. From the totality of the circumstances, noted above, it could be safely inferred that Surinder Kumar alone was occupying the demised premises though he was the younger brother of Hans Raj tenant. He was occupying the same not as a member of the joint Hindu family consisting of five brothers. The only presumption which could be raised was that he was occupying the same as a sub-tenant. Thus, the appeal was dismissed and the eviction order passed against the tenant was maintained. The present revision petition has been filed against the same.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.