JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. RULIA (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition challenging the order of the appellate authority, dated 28th July, 1974, whereby the petitioner had been ordered to be evicted from the shop, in question. Rulia Ram landlord -respondent, had filed an application for eviction of the petitioner and Om Parkash on the ground of subletting and non -payment of rent. He averred that the shop in question was rented out to Om Parkash at a monthly rent of Rs. 30/ - as per rent -note dated 11th June. 1962. At the time of the execution of the rent -note, one years rent was paid by Om Parkash. Two -three months later, Om Parkash sublet the shop of Jagdish Chander petitioner, who stated his business of a cycle merchant under the name of "Madhok Cycle Store" in this shop. This sub -letting was done without the consent of the landlord. In the beginning, the landlord was under the impression that Jagdish Chander was employed with Om Parkash, but later on he came to know that Om Parkash had sublet the shop. He served Om Parkash with a notice dated 18th June, 1967, requiring him to vacate the shop in dispute.

(2.) THE ejectment application was resisted on behalf of Om Parkash and Jagdish Chander and it was pleaded that the shop in question was actually rented out to Jagdish Chander and Om Parkash never took the shop on rent from the landlord. Jagdish Chander averred that he was running the business of a cycle -store in the shop in question from the very beginning and he had been paying the rent to Rulia Ram landlord, regularly. Om Parkash in a separate written statement pleaded that he never took the shop in question on rent from Rulia Ram, landlord. However during the course of his statement, he stated that he signed the rent notes. Exhibit A/1 dated 18th June, 1962 and Exhibit A -3 dated 17th August, 1967, in favour of the landlord with a view to oblige him so that any tenant whomsoever the shop was rented out could be ejected by the landlord.

(3.) THE contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that Jagdish Chancier got his shop registered under the Shop Act in 1962 and, there fore, it be presumed that the shop was rented out to him is without any merit. There is no evidence to hold that it was the shop in question which was got registered by Jagdish Chander. Similarly, the settlements of Dwarka Dass, R.W. 2, Surinder Kumar R.W. 3, Inder Singh, R.W. 4 and C.R. Joshi. R.W. 5 are of no avail to the petitioner as the documentary and circumstantial evidence led is the case go to belie the case of the petitioner that he had taken the shop on rent from the landlord. Rent Note Exhibit A/1, dated 18th June 1952, rent -note, Exhibit A/3 dated 17th August, 1967 and the writing Exhibit R.W. 8/1 which Om Parkash admittedly signed all go to show that Om Parkash was the tenant in the shop in dispute and not Jagdish Chander. In Exhibit RW 8/1, Om Parkash wrote to Rulia Ram, landlord, that he had already paid him a year's rent amounting Rs. 360/ - for which receipt may be issued in his name. The contention that Om Parkash is having another big shop and many other shops in Muktsar and therefore, he had no necessity to run to the shop is without any merit. Om Parkash explained that he originally took the shop on rent for business purposes but subsequently he did not start the business in this shop. The statement of Shri C.R. Joshi, R.W. 5 has been disbelieved by both the Courts below and in my opinion for valid reasons.