RAM SARUP GUPTA Vs. OM PARKASH CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but eviction order has been passed in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord Om Parkash Chopra and Gopal Chander Chopra sought the ejectment of their tenant Ved parkash from the building in dispute, inter alia, on the ground that he had sublet the same to Ram Sarup Gupta and that the same had become, unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was pleaded taht the premises were let out to Ved Parkash vide rent note Ex. 42, dated 9th May, 1957, but subsequent thereto, the tenant sublet the same to Ram Sarup Gupta, (respondent No. 2 in the ejectment application), who was in occupation thereof. As regards the building in dispute being unsafe and unfit for human habitation, it was alleged that the building was a very old one, made of small bricks, and was in a dilapidated condition; that one Chaubara, i.e., back room out of two rooms on the first floor, was in a deplorable condition, and its roof had fallen down; that the walls had developed big and dangerous cracks, that even walls of the front room had developed cracks. The ejectment application was contested by both the respondents, namely, Ved Parkash and Ram Sarup Gupta. Ved Parkash, in his Written Statement, denied the allegations and stated that he was never the tenant in the property in dispute nor did he ever occupy it as a tenant and that he had been carrying on his business on Shivala Road, Ludhiana, for the last 40 years, and had no concern with the property in dispute. He further that he had signed the rent note (Ex. 42) as surety and nor as a tenant and that the possession had been delivered to messrs. Amritsaria Mal Vasdev who was the actual tenant of the property under the landlord, and thus, occupying the premises in dispute and that since he (Ved Parkash) was not the tenant, the question of his paying the rent did not arise not did he ever transfer the possession of respondent No. 2, Ram Sarup Gupta, as alleged because he (Ved Parkash) never occupied the premises as such. In the Written Statement filed on behalf of Ram Sarup Gupta, respondent No. 2, he denied that Ved Parkash was the actual tenant of the premises in dispute. He disputed the validity and the genuineness of the rent note A. 2, and pleaded that even if there were any such rent note, it was collusive and fake, and not binding on him. According to him, Ved Parkash neither delivered possession of the premises in question nor did he ever occupy the same whereas he has been running his business on different premises for the last 45 years; that the tenancy of the premises in dispute had been settled direct between Messrs. Amritsar Mal Vasdev, through him, and the landlords in the year 1955, originally @ Rs. 15/- p.m. for the front Chobra, courtyard and the demolished back room but lateron at the time of settlement the landlords insisted upon a surety, as a device to ensure regular payment of the rent, and it was, thus, that he (respondent No. 1), being known to both the parties and having helped in the renting out of the premises, stood surety for the payment of the rent. It was further arranged that the rent would be received from Messr. Amritsaria Mal Vasdev direct but nominally through the said surety's name i.e., Ved Parkash and receipts of payments, if issued, would also be in his name whereas said Messrs. Amritsaria mal Vesdev would be the real and actual tenant; that the rent was increased to Rs. 18/- p.m. when a tin roof was provided on the demolished back room, and that the tenant, Ram Sarup Gupta, and had been paying the rent through cheques and sometimes in cash, and, thus, there being a direct relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was denied that the premises were in a dilapidated condition, as alleged. Earlier, the landlords had filed a suit for permanent injunctions against the tenants restraining them to make constructions, additions and alternations, and under the cover of that suit, the landlords during the pendency of the suit and in the absence of the tenants on 11th July, 1979, at night, removed and took away the roof of the back room with a view to pressuring them to vacate the premises and also creating false evidence for eviction.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Rent Controller on the basis of the documentary evidence on recorded had rightly come to the conclusion that Ram Sarup was the tenant since the year 1955, and that the rent note Ex. A 2 was mere paper transaction. Ved Parkash never occupied the premises as such, under the said rent note. According to the learned counsel, the said finding has been reversed in appeal by the Appellate Authority illegally and on premises and conjectures. It is contended that no finding has been given that Ved Parkash ever occupied the premises in dispute, and, thus, Ram Sarup, petitioner, is the direct tenant from the very inception of the tenancy, and even prior to the rent note A. 2. Thus, the question of subletting by Ved Parkash did not arise, it is argued. As regards that building being unsafe and unfit for human habitation, it is contended that the roof of the back room was of a tin shed, and had been removed by the landlords themselves; therefore, the finding of the Rent Controller in this behalf was correct. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-landlords submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence, the learned Appellate Authority had found that Ved Parkash was the tenant, and not Ram Sarup, petitioner, and that being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, likewise on the question of the building being unsafe and unfit for human occupation, the expert evidence led by the landlords has been accepted by the Appellate Authority and that being so, the said finding is binding on this court.