KISHAN LAL VIG Vs. SHRI SUNDER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment, dated June 6, 1987, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, under Section 15(4) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, whereby it upheld the order of the learned Rent Controller, Ballabgarh, dated December 14, 1978, rejecting the application of the landlord-petitioner for ejectment of tenant-respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that he is the owner and the landlord of a shop bearing No. IC/57, situated in Market No. 1, N.I.T. Faridabad, and respondent No. 1 is a tenant under him at a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- besides the house tax. He claimed the eviction of respondent No. 1 on multiple grounds, namely, that respondent No. 1 had not paid rent since August 5, 1975; that he had sublet and transferred the possession of the shop in dispute to Krishan Lal and Dina Nath, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, respectively; and that the petitioner himself required the shop in dispute for his own use and occupation as his younger son was to be settled in business. Respondent No. 1 tendered the arrears of rent within the period prescribed by Section 13(1) of the Act. As a result, the first ground for eviction became non-existent. It was further held by the learned Rent Controller that the shop in dispute being a non-residential building could not be got vacated for the personal use and occupation of the landlord. As a result, this ground also failed. On the ground of sub-letting, the learned Rent Controller found that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 continues to be in occupation of the shop and is carrying on the business of photography. His brothers assist him in this business. He has never parted with the possession of the shop in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. As already mentioned above the appeal of the petitioner before the learned Appellate Authority also failed and was dismissed vide judgment under revision. This is how the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) AS against above, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, besides referring to the oral evidence of a number of witnesses produced on his behalf invited my attention to the amount opening form and the statement of Account, Exhibit R.W. 6/1, 6/2 and 6/3, produced by Ram Kishan, P.W. 6, from Vijay Bank Ltd., Faridabad. These documents pertain to the account opened by Deepak Photo Studio of which Sunder Lal is mentioned to be the proprietor. The statement of account shows the transactions from July 26, 1976 to August 15, 1977, which bear out that long before the filing of the instant ejectment application by the petitioner on July 6, 1977, this Bank account had been in operation. Even the notice requiring the respondent to vacate the premises in dispute, copy of which is brought on record as Exhibit P.2, is dated 21st September, 1976. This shows that the account of Deepak Photo Studio in Vijay Bank Ltd. cannot be said to have been brought into operation to word off the ejectment on the ground subletting. Another important piece of evidence brought on record by the respondent is in the form in Sales tax assessment order Exhibits R.W. 8/1, R.W. 8/2 and R.W. 8/3, which pertain to the assessment years 1975-76, 1974-75 and 1973-74 respectively. In all these assessment orders, Sunder Lal is described as the sale proprietor of the assessee M/s. Deepak Photo Studio.