VIR CHAND Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This is landlord's whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below. He sought the ejectment on the ground that the shop in question was leased out to Behari Lal and Mool Chand for a period of one year at the rate of Rs. 400/- per annum on 15.3.1965. After the expiry of one year, Mool Chand had sublet the shop to Nathu Ram respondent No. 3 (since dead and represented by Kasturi Lal and Mathra Dass) without his written consent. According to the landlord, Nathu Ram executed a rent note as a sub-tenant of Mool Chand on 15.3.1965 i.e. the same date on which it was let out to Mool Chand and Behari Lal because Mool Chand and Nathu Ram were married to real sisters. The ejectment application was filed on 30.9.1975. Behari Lal tenant did not turn up in spite of service and was, therefore, proceeded ex parte. Mool Chand tenant initially contested the application. He filed his written statement on 23.10.1975 and ultimately withdrew the same on 26.3.1976 when his counsel sought retirement. In his written statement Mool Chand denied that the demised shop was taken on rent by him and Behari Lal on 15.3.1965. He pleaded that the demised shop was taken on rent by Nathu Ram from Vir Chand landlord as Karta of the firm M/s. Nathu Ram Pawan Kumar and executed rent note in his favour. He further pleaded that the neither ever occupied the shop nor did he pay any rent to the landlord. Nathu Ram the alleged sub tenant contested the application. He denied that the premises were ever let out to Mool Chand and Behari Lal on 15.3.1965. According to him, it was a fabricated story and he was in occupation of the shop since 17.2.1965. Mahurat ceremony of the firm M/s. Walaiti Ram Pawan Kumar was performed in the demised shop on 18.2.1965 and since then this firm is in occupation and has been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per annum. Mool Chand respondent acted as a mediator and since the landlord was pressing hard to give surely that he would not harass him, he, as a result thereof got a rent note executed from Nathu Ram in favour of Mool Chand. It was under these circumstances that rent note Exhibit A/9 was executed by him in favour of Mool Chand though throughout the rent was being paid to Vir Chand Nathu Ram.

(2.) THE learned Rent Controller found that Nathu Ram took the shop in dispute from Vir Chand as a direct tenant on 17.2.1965 and he executed a rent note in this behalf in favour of the landlord for a period of 11 months. Nathu Ram thus occupied the shop in question as a tenant on 18.2.1965. The question of its leasing out by the landlord to Mool Chand or Behari Lal on 15.3.1965 did not arise. As a consequence the landlord has failed to show that Mool Chand had sublet the shop to Nathu Ram without his consent. It was further found that rent note Exhibit A/9 executed by Nathu Ram is a sham transaction and has been got manoeuvred by the landlord to keep Nathu Ram under his teeth. In view of this finding, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the order dismissing the rent application.