HARBANS SINGH Vs. COL. MAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlords Col. Man Singh and Prem Singh rented the shop in dispute, to Parsin Singh, tenant, at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- vide rent note dated June 20, 1977. The tenant had also agreed to pay the house-tax for the demised premises in addition to the said rent. The ejectment application was filed on November 17, 1978. The eviction was sought on the grounds that the tenant was in arrears of rent since November, 1977 and that he had sublet the premises to M/s. Fauji Sweet House through Harbans Singh and Nachhattar Singh, who were respondents Nos. 2 and 4 in the ejectment application. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was denied that the rent was to be paid in advance or that he was a statutory tenant. However, it was admitted that he had taken the shop, on rent vide rent note dated June 20, 1977, on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. It was also admitted that he was in arrears of rent and the house tax, but he was not in a position to pay the same in a lumpsum. It was further admitted that respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were in exclusive possession of the premises, in dispute. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, 3, it was pleaded that the shop, in dispute, was on lease with Parsin Singh, respondent, at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- only. He entered into a partnership with them and constituted the firm know as M/s. Fauji Sweet House. The partnership deed, in this behalf, was executed on December 19, 1977, Since then, the business of the said firm is going on in the shop, in dispute. Parsin Singh respondent, being one of the partners of the said firm, the question of sub-letting the premises did not arise. It was also pleaded that the landlords got forged rent note executed in their favour at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- because of the inter se dispute between the partners. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant Parsin Singh was in arrears of rent. The rent was Rs. 250/- per month vide rent note dated June 20, 1977. It was further found that the tenant had sublet the premises to respondents Nos. 2 and 4, without the written consent of the landlords. With these findings, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to the eviction application have filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.