DHARAM CHAND Vs. KASTURI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by unsuccessful landlord against the order of the Appellate Authority arises out of the following facts petitioner landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant respondent No. 1 before the Rent Controller and stated in paragraph 2(c) thereof that the tenant had sub-let the premises to respondent No. 2 without his consent and permission in writing. This was in fact the main ground on which the application for eviction was moved. The tenant respondent controverted the allegations and in reply to Paragraph 2 (c) of the application stated as follows :

(2.) The Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioner and held that the application was not premature. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the petitioner and it was held that respondent No. 1 had closed his business in the shop in dispute and sublet the same to respondent No. 2 without the written consent of the petitioner and on that ground the respondents are liable to eviction. Issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the petitioner and it was held that the petitioner had duly and properly terminated the tenancy of the respondent in respect of the demised premises. As a result of these findings, the application of the landlord-petitioner was allowed. Dissatisfied by the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant -respondent appealed to the Appellate Authority, who reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on issue No. 2 and held that there was no subletting and consequently, allowed the appeal and dismissed the application of the petitioner. Hence this revision petition by the landlord.

(3.) Before me the only point canvassed is whether respondent No. 1 has sublet the demised premises to respondent No. 2 without the written consent and permission of the petitioner. Mr. Ram Lal Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the tenant-respondent admitted in his reply to paragraph 2 (c) of the application that he had a partnership with respondent No. 2 and that the established facts on the record show beyond doubt that he had sublet the demised premises to respondent No. 2. I find merit in the contention raised by Mr. Aggarwal. The stand taken by the tenant-respondent in the written statement is that he was a partner in partnership concern of respondent No. 2. Kartar Chand A.W. 4, categorically stated that the demised shop was in front of his shop that he had not seen the respondent in the shop after Baisakhi and he had been section liquor being stocked therein. Strangely enough, he was not cross-examined with regard to that part of the statement that the respondent was not working there. He was only cross-examined to find out the relationship between the respondents as to whether they were partners, but he denied any knowledge. It is settled law that the part of a statement in examination-in-chief, which is not challenged in cross-examination, is a conclusive fact. Shri Barkat Singh, Advocate A.W. 1 deposed that he is Notary Public at Amritsar that he along with the landlord went to the shop, in dispute, on 26th May, 1970 and found it closed. Inderpal process-server, A.W. 2, deposed that he went to effect service on the tenant-respondent and found the shop closed and then he went to Kangra Colony where the tenant-respondent runs the bakery shop. The petitioner-landlord appeared as his own witness as A.W. 6 and deposed, that he had sent a notice by registered post to the tenant-respondent at the address of the shop in dispute but it was returned with the report that the addressee had left the place. From these facts the only inference which can be drawn is that the tenant respondent was no longer running his Bakery shop in the demised premises and that the shop was sublet. Raghbir Singh A.W. 5, who is a clerk in the Excise Department, stated that Kasturi Lal was not a partner in the liquor business of M/s Darshan Lal and Co., Liquor Contractors. Non-production of any partnership deed by the respondents clearly shows that there was no partnership between them. The oral evidence produced by the tenant-respondent is of no avail to him. Dewan Chand, Gopal Dass and Jagdish R.Ws. have contradicted each other as to the location of shop in dispute. The evidence of Milkhi Ram R.W. 4 also does not help the respondent in any manner.