GURDIAL SINGH Vs. MAHANT BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlord Mahant Bhagwan Dass filed the ejectment application on September 27, 1976 for the ejectment of his tenant Ibrahim inter alia on the ground that he had sublet the premises in dispute, consisting of kothari comprising of two compartments of building No. 1741/5, Chowk Prag Dass, Gali Shahidan, Amritsar, to Gurdial Singh, respondent No. 2. According to the landlord, the demised premises were tenanted by Ibrahim at the rate of Rs. 7 per moth vide rent note dated February 25, 1967, with effect from February 5, 1967, for residential purposes, from Mahant Narain Dass who was the original owner thereof. He died on August 10, 1971. After his death, Mahant Bhagwan Dass became the landlord. The tenant, Ibrahim, was proceeded ex parte and the ejectment application was contested by Gurdial Singh, respondent, the alleged sub-tenant. According to him, he was a direct tenant under the landlord. He was continuing in possession of the demised premises since long. Prior to him, his father was a tenant on the premises at the rate of Rs. 2 per month. After his death, he became the tenant and was continuing to pay rent but when he refused to increase the rent the landlord filed the present ejectment application. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the execution of the rent note. Exhibit A-6, dated February 25, 1967, by Ibrahim, tenant, was a collusive one intended to injure Gurdial Singh. According to the Rent Controller, Gurdial Singh was a direct tenant under the landlord. Consequently, the eviction application was dismissed. In appeal before the Appellate Authority, the landlord moved the application for amendment of the ejectment application which was allowed. As a result, the parties were also allowed to lead evidence. There, the landlord produced the rent note, mark B, executed by Gurdial Singh with respect to the premises which he was occupying earlier and had vacated on October 31, 1968. After vacating the same he occupied the demised premises which are different from those which were occupied by him previously and vacated subsequently. The Appellate Authority after appreciating the entire evidence came to the conclusion that Ibrahim, respondent, was a tenant on the demised premises and that Gurdial Singh, respondent had surrendered possession of the premises which were rented out to him vide rent note, mark B, on October 31, 1968. Now, Gurdial Singh, respondent, was admittedly in possession of the demised premises. So, he could not be held to be a direct tenant under the landlord. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order was passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, Gurdial Singh, respondent, has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.