SURAJ PARKASH Vs. RAJ KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom the eviction application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but allowed in appeal.

(2.) RAJ Kaur and others, claiming themselves to be the owners and landlords of the demised premises, filed the ejectment application against the tenant Sahib Dayal on the ground that he had sublet the premises to Suraj Parkash, the alleged sub-tenant. According to them, the premises were let out vide rent note, Exhibit A.2, dated May 3, 1962, on a monthly rent of Rs. 6/- to Sahib Dayal who later on sublet the same to Suraj Parkash vide rent note, Exhibit A.1, dated May 12, 1962, on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. The ejectment application was filed on March 27, 1974. Sahib Dayal appeared and filed an admitting written statement. He admitted the tenancy in his favour and the factum of his having sublet the premises to Suraj Parkash, tenant. He did not tender the arrears of rent, as claimed by the landlords. Suraj Parkash, tenant, in his written statement denied the title of the landlords to the premises in question. According to him, the premises were taken on rent by him in the year 1962 on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. The landlords were in know of these facts, but remained silent for more than 12 years. Sahib Dayal, respondent, was related to the landlords as the landlady Raj Kaur was his brother's wife's sister and he was landlady's attorney. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the writing of Exhibit A.2, dated May 3, 1962 and, Exhibit A.1, dated May 12, 1962, and the non-appearance of Sahib Dayal as a witness proved the fact that the landlords and Sahib Dayal had colluded with each other. It was also found that Sahib Dayal was never in occupation of the demised premises. From the very inception of the tenancy, it was Suraj Parkash who was in occupation of the premises. Thus, the plea of subletting was negatived, and the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller primarily on the ground that in view of the rent note, Exhibit A.1, dated May 12, 1962, Suraj Parkash could not be allowed to plead that he was not the tenant under Sahib Dayal. As a result, it was found that Sahib Dayal had sublet the premises to Suraj Parkash and the eviction order was passed against him accordingly. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court. During the pendency of this revision petition, the landlords moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 3103-CII of 1986, in order to show the subsequent events. According to the application, the landlords, were in dire need of the premises, in question, for living therein, and therefore they prayed that some actual date may be fixed for final disposal of the revision petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.