RAMESHWAR DASS Vs. GHANSHAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlords sought the ejectment of their tenant Rameshwar Dass from the shop in dispute on three grounds, including on account of subletting. According to the landlords, the tenant without their consent had been subletting different portions of the premises to different persons for the purpose of storing goods, and he had been receiving rent from them ; that the goods so stored by the sub-tenants several times remained plaged with various banks : that these sub-tenants were M/s. Mam Chand Sadhu Ram M/s. Raghbir Singh Baru Ram, Ghansham Dass Mittal and others of Safidon Mandi. In the written statement, these allegations were denied. All the grounds of ejectment taken by the landlords were negatived by the Rent Controller. However, on the question of subletting it was found that the tenant had sublet the premises to M/s Mam Chand Sadhu Ram who had pledged their goods lying in one of the rooms of the demised premises. Consequently, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller, and, thus maintained the eviction order. Aggrieved with it, the tenant has come up in revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the relevant evidence on record. AW 6 Khazanchi Lal, the cashier of the bank, producted AW 6/A, dated 22nd June, 1977; AW 6/B dated 15th June, 1978 and AW 6/C dated 15th June, 1978. As regards AW 6/A, even the witness himself admitted in cross-examination that "Invoice AW 6/A records these goods were held in kothi No. 20 situate in the shop of M/s. Rameshwar Dass Shri Kishan Dass but this entry was found to be wrong by the bank manager Shri S.P. Gupta on the same day." Thus, the said invoice was not rightly relied upon by the authorities below. As regards the second invoice Ex. AW 6/B, the columns were filed in by the said witness in his own hand. In cross-examination, the said witness admitted that "the name of firm M/s. Rameshwar Dass Shri Kishan Dass is not recorded anywhere in the godown register at page 179." This is with reference to AW 6/B. It means that the entry AW/6 where the goods held in column No. 2 situate in the premises of M/s. Rameshwar Dass Kishan Dass, was not mentioned in the godown register. According to the Appellate Authority, the statement of the clerk AW 6 had been rightly believed by the Rent Controller to hold that the firm M/s. Mam Chand Sadhu Ram pledged their goods with the bank vide AW 6/B in the year 1978, and that the said entry relating to the same stands incorporated in the godown register of the bank also is wrong and tantamount to misreading of the evidence. The said entry AW 6/B. is not incorporated in the godown register of the bank, as admitted by AW 6 in his cross-examination. Once it is so found, no reliance could be placed on the entry in AW 6/8. Ram Karan Dass who is said to have signed the said form on behalf of M/s. Mam Chand Sadhu Ram was produced by the tenant as RW 4 and he has categorically stated that his firm never took the premises on rent from M/s. Rameshwar Dass, tenant. In these circumstances, the findings of the authorities below are liable to be set aside because the same are based on a misreading of the statement of AW 6. The entry in AW 6/B was never incorporated in the godown register as admitted by him. Thus, the finding is vitiated. Consequently, the petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the ejectment application is dismissed with costs. Petition succeeds.