KUNTI DEVI Vs. TEK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is a petition filed by the landlady whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) SMT . Kunti Devi filed the present ejectment application on 4.8.1971 against her tenants, Shambhu Ram Mahajan, Tek Chand and Ram Rachhpal, alleging that the shop, in dispute was given on rent to M/s. Hira Lal Shiv Prashad at Rs. 1600/- per annum in Vikrami 2008. Now the said firm has been dissolved and respondents Nos. 1 to 3, namely, Shambhu Ram, Tek Chand and Ram Rachhpal, are its partners. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the said tenants had sublet the entire shop to respondents Nos. 4 to 11 in the ejectment application. They were in possession thereof whereas the tenants were charging rent from them. It was also stated that earlier an ejectment application was filed on the ground that the tenants had sublet the premises to M/s. Kesar Dass Bhagwan Dass. However, in that case, it was held by the High Court, vide judgment copy Exhibit R-3 dated 18.1.1965, that the said firm was a licensee and not a sub-tenant, as alleged. However, after the decision of the earlier ejectment application, the tenants have further sublet the premises to other persons as well. During the pendency of the ejectment application, Shambhu Ram died. However, written statement was filed on behalf of Shambhu Ram and his son Tek Chand. It was pleaded by them that respondent No. 3 is not the tenant as alleged in the ejectment application and, at present, only both of them are the partners of the firm Hira Lal Shiv Prasad. It was further pleaded that they had never sublet the premises as alleged. The persons occupying the premises are licensees and not sub-tenants. The learned Rent Controller, who was the Collector at that time, came to the conclusion that respondents Nos. 4 to 11 were not the sub-tenants. They were in occupation of the part of the premises as licensees. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority, who was the Deputy Commissioner at that time, affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the order rejecting the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) ON the earlier date, the case was adjourned to find out the possibility of a compromise, if any, since the litigation has been pending for the last more than 16 years. However, no compromise was arrived at.