RAJ KUMAR Vs. HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJ Kumar petitioner was a tenant in respect of a gallery of shop No. 4531, situated at Bhatinda. The premises in dispute were obtained on lease by him on Oct. 1, 1964, on a yearly rent of Rs. 650/ -. On Feb. 26, 1972 the landlord-respondent filed an application under s. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) for ejectment of the petitioner on the grounds that he had not paid rent from July 1971 onwards and that he had sub--let a part of the shop to M/s. Singla Brothers and its partners Gopi Ram and Murli Dhar, respondents 2 to 4 without the consent of the landlord.

(2.) THE petitioner paid the rent due with interest and costs of the application to the landlord on the first date of hearing. On merits, he denied that he had sublet the premises in dispute to anybody and asserted that Kasturi Lal was a partner in his firm. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues on the pleas raised by the parties:--

(3.) SO far as the landlord is concerned, he relied upon the statement made by A. C. Jaiswal (P. W. 1) who was in--charge of the Telegraph Office, Bhatinda and who produced official record to prove that M/s. Singla Brothers, Bhatinda had got telegraphic address registered with his Department on May 12, 1971 for one year on payment of the prescribed fee. He also produced a copy of order Ex. P--A which was passed by the Department in this regard. This order does not mention in terms that it had been passed in respect of shop No. 4531 situated at Bhatinda. However, this order was passed on the basis of application marked A, which purports to have been by one Murli Dhar, styling himself as a representative of M/s. Singla Brothers, Bhatinda. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since Murli Dhar has not been produced in the witness--box, the application marked A could not have been read into evidence by the learned Courts below. Strictly speaking, the learned counsel is right in saying so, but I see no reason why this application be not looked into in order to interpret the order Ex. P--A passed by the Department, especially when this application had come from proper custody. It is settled law that it is open to a Court to look into the pleadings of the parties for the purpose of interpreting a decree. I see no reason why this principle be not extended to the said order as well. Be that as it may, the landlord--respondent also produced Naresh Kumar (a. W. 3) who is a peon of the P. & T. Department and who stated that he had been delivering telegrams meant for M/s. Singla Brothers at the premises in dispute. He has also produced Sita Ram (A. W. 2) who stated on oath that he had worked as a part--time munim of M/s. Singla Brothers who are occupying a part of the premises in dispute. The aforesaid evidence produced by the landlord--respondent had established that the petitioner had allowed another firm to use his premises. The only thing to be seen is whether such a user amounted to the creation of a lease or a licence. In a matter like this, the plea raised by the tenant-petitioners has to be considered with greater care and caution. If he had come forth with the please he had simply allowed M/s. Singla Brothers the facility of receiving telegrams at this address, the claim made by the landlord--respondent would have been defeated. I, however, find that in the written statement the petitioner made a complete denial of the fact that M/s. Singla Brothers were allowed to use these premises. Whether M/s. Singla Brothers were parting with some money for the user of the disputed premises or not, is a fact which is within the special knowledge of the petitioner and the partners of M/s. Singla Brothers. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The partners of M/s. Singla Brothers are not shown to have any relationship with the petitioner and in normal course of business a tenant does not like anybody else to occupy or use the premises without payment of any consideration. It is particularly so with regard to the cases which are governed by the Act, because a tenant knows that subletting constitutes a ground for his ejectment.