BALWANT RAI Vs. GAURI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but eviction order was passed in appeal. Gauri Shankar landlord, filed an ejectment application against Munshi Ram tenant impleading M/s Vinod General Stores and its partners, Vidya Sagar and Vinod Kumar, the alleged sub-tenants, for their eviction from one shop along with a chabutra and two rooms on the back side situated in Sham Bazar, Khanna, as shown red in the plan. Exhibit A.6. According to the landlord, Munshi Ram was the tenant of the shop in dispute on rent under him at the rate of Rs. 103/- per month; that Munshi Ram was also to pay house tax; that Munshi Ram erected a Khokha (wooden cabin) without his permisson and sub-let the same to M/s Vinod General Stores and its partners without his permission: that Munshi Ram also demolished a wall which existed at point A and B and constructed a new wall at point CD and blocked the door at point X in plan Exhibit A.6; that the erection of the khokha (wooden cabin) on the chabutra and a wall on the back room and by demolishing the wall AB, the tenant had effected additions and alterations in an unauthorised manner and thus, he had impaired the value and utility of the demised premises.

(2.) THE application was contested by Munshi Ram as well as M/s Vinod General Stores and its partners by filing separate but similar written statements. According to Munshi Ram tenant, the premises in dispute were on the rent with the firm known as M/s Munshi Ram Balwant Rai. Cloth Merchants; that the rent had always been paid by the firm and, therefore, the application was bad and not tenable; that a small temporary khokha was built with the express consent of the landlord for the sake of convenience; that no room had been sub let to respondents Nos. 2 to 4; that firm Munshi Ram Balwant Rai and Munshi Ram were in actual physical and exclusive possession of the premises in dispute; that no possession of any portion of the premises in dispute had been parted with; that firm M/s Munshi Ram Balwant Rai kept their stock of cloth in all the rooms including the khokha; that Vidya Sagar is his real nephew and Vinod Kumar respondent, is his son and they rendered help to the firm in their cloth business and were merely licencees; that no wall had been demolished and no addition or alteration had been made and, therefore, the value and utility of the premises in dispute had not been impaired.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller found that the landlord has failed to prove that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between him and Munshi Ram alone. Rather, the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the landlord and firm M/s Munshi Ram Balwant Rai. On the question of sub-letting, the Rent Controller found that firm M/s Munshi Ram Balwant Rai has not sub-let portion of the premises in dispute to M/s Vinod General Stores, as alleged. However, the plea of the landlord that the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises was also negatived. Ultimately, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of sub-letting and came to the conclusion that the shop was let out to Munshi Ram alone and he had parted with the possession of khokha and the back room; the business being run there was different from the business run by Munshi Ram and thus Munshi Ram had sub let the site of khokha marked as PQRS and the back portion marked as CDEF, shows as rent in the plan Exhibit A 6, to M/s Vinod General Store and its partners Vidya Sagar and Vinod Kumar. In view of that finding eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same the tenants have filed this petition in this Court.