TEJPAL GOEL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition by Tejpal Goel (hereinafter to be called the 'landlord') under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order of the learned Financial Commissioner, dated February 3, 1976 (Annexure p. 3).

(2.) The landlord filed an ejectment application under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) before the Rent Controller, Ballabgarh, on April 3, 1973, against Kundan Lal, respondent No. 3 (hereinafter to be called the 'tenant') and Rishi Pal, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter to be called the 'sub-tenant') for the vacation of a building situated in ward No. 3 on the ground that the respondents had not paid the arrears of rent, that the tenant had sub-let the premises in dispute to respondent No. 2 and the landlord required the premises bonafide for his own use and occupation. Arrears of rent were deposited on the first hearing. Respondent No. 2 in his written statement deposited his status as a sub-tenant and contended that the landlord had filed the ejectment application in collusion with respondent No. 3, the so-called tenant. It was further averred that he himself was the real tenant. In view of the pleadings of the parties, a number of issues were framed, but the controversy in the present writ petition relates to the following two issues :-

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the finding by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority to the effect that Respondent No. 2 (Rishi Pal) was the sub-tenant of Respondent No. 3 (Kundan Lal) was a finding of fact and could not be disturbed in revision by the learned Financial Commissioner and thus the impugned order was without jurisdiction. This contention, though plausible on the face of it, cannot stand scrutiny. The revision was filed under section 15(6) of the Act, according to which the Financial Commissioner has the power to pass any appropriate order keeping in view the legality and propriety of the order by the subordinate authorities. According to the settled law, the powers under section 15(6) of the Act, which is identically worded as section 15(5) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, are much wider in scope than those under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the revisional authority is even competent to reverse the order of the subordinate authority even relating to findings of fact in appropriate circumstance. In the present case, the so-called tenant (Kundan Lal respondent) has supported the case of the landlord out and the only evidence on the record comprises of some counterfoils of rent receipts. Exhibit A. W. 4/1 to Exhibit A. W. 4/11, which show the payment of rent by the tenant to one Chhaju Ram, the previous owner of the premises, a letter by the said Kundan Lal to Chhaju Ram (marked 'A') and a post-card by one Joginder Pal to father of the petitioner. Thus there is no documentary evidence to justify any inference that Rishi Pal, respondent No. 2, had been inducted as a sub-tenant on the premises in dispute by Kundan Lal, respondent No. 3. In view of the fact that Kundan Lal has gone out of the way to support the landlord and appeared as a witness of the landlord, his statement cannot be given any credence. Some witnesses were produced, by Rishi Pal (sub-tenant) to show that rent had been paid by him to the landlord. The statements of these witnesses were not relied upon by the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority on the ground that there were some discrepancies in their statements. However, there was no cogent or satisfactory evidence on the record to warrant, a conclusion that Rishi Pal was in possession of the premises in dispute as a sub-tenant and not as a tenant of the landlord. The learned Financial Commissioner, after assessing all this evidence, arrived at the conclusion that the evidence of the transactions between the landlord and the so-called tenant cannot be made the basis of holding Rishi Pat as sub-tenant. This finding is based on the assessment of the evidence on the record. I cannot be stated that this finding of the learned Financial Commissioner was in any way vitiated as being without jurisdiction keeping in view the wider scope of section 15(6) of the Act.