SHRIMATI SHANTI DEVI Vs. JAGDISH PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision Petition under section 15(5) or the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) is directed against the judgment dated 10-3-1978 of the learned Appellate Authority, Ferozepore, affirming the order dated 17-11-1976 of the learned Rent Controller, Ferozepore whereby an application filed by the landlord-Petitioners under section 13 of the Act for the ejectment of Jagdish Pershad and Bal Krishan respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, from shop No. 260, situated in bazar No. 4, Ferozepore Cantt. was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the shop in dispute was owned by Smt. Gian Devi, grand-mother of Tula Ram. Ram, Gopal, Sant Lal and Basant Lal landlord-petitioners, Jagdish Pershad respondent No. 1, and mother-in-law of Smt. Shanti Devi, widow of Tapeshri Ram. who is petitioner No. 1 in the present petition. It is not disputed that on the death of Smt. Gian Devi, all the aforesaid persons, including Jagdish Parshad, inherited the shop in dispute. The case of the landlord-petitioners, however, is that Jagdish Parshad was separated from the family in the year 1965, and a writing Mark 'A' in this regard was executed on 23-7-1965, which is signed by Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner No. 1 and Jagdish Parshad respondent No. 1 and is also attested by two witnesses Parma Nand and Phool Chand, who have appeared in the witness-box as A.W.2 and A.W.1, respectively. It is further alleged by the petitioners that Jagdish Parshad took the shop in dispute on rent from them and agreed to pay Rs. 60 per month as rent that he was in arrears of rent from 1.10.1973 to 31-5-1974 and that he was also liable to pay house-tax and water-charges for the said period. It was further alleged that Jagdish Parshad respondent No. 1 had sublet a portion of the shop in dispute to Bal Krishan respondent No. 2 in the year 1968; and that he had sublet the entire shop in question to the said Bal Krishan in April, 1974 and since then this respondent (Bal Krishan) was in exclusive possession of the shop. While Jagdish Parshad respondent No. 1 admitted that he had been separated from the landlord-petitioner by a family settlement and that lie had no right of ownership qua the shop in dispute and further admitted that he had taken the shop on rent from the landlord-petitioners, he disputed the rate of rent and asserted that the agreed rent was Rs. 50 per month. As regards the arrears of rent he tendered Rs. 480 as arrears of rent for the period from 1-10-1973 to 31-5-1974, Rs. 35 as costs and Rs. 20 as interest. As regards the allegation of subletting, Jagdish Parshad respondent No. 1 simply stated in his reply that the allegation of subletting was vague. The real defence was, however, preferred by Bal Krishan respondent No. 2 who stated that the property in dispute belonged to the joint family of the landlord-petitioners and Jagdish Parshad respondent No. 1. There was no partition and that Jagdish Parshad had been mischievously arrayed as a tenant. He further asserted that he had taken the disputed shop from all the landlords together on rent at the rate of Rs. 30 per month in the year 1968, and since the eviction application had not been filed by all the landlords jointly the same was not maintainable. As regards arrears of rent he stated that he had paid rent upto 30-4-1974 to Jagdish Parshad one of the landlords, and he had offered rent for the months of May, June and July, 1974 to Jagdish Parshad but he refused to accept the same whereupon he remitted the rent by money order which was also refused by Jagdish Pershad. He also alleged that on 26-4-1974 Jagdish Parshad respondent No. 1 along with the other co-owners, i. e the landlord-petitioners, forcibly and illegally locked the disputed shop and threw out his goods. The matter was reported to the Police. Jagdish Parshad, who was having his business in the Police Lines, tried to use influence but the justice-loving Police Inspector of Police Station, Ferozepore Cantt. made the landlords to remove the aggression and rent for the month of April, 1974 was paid and a receipt therefor taken in the police station in the presence of the Police Inspector.

(3.) IN the instant revision petition before me, it has been canvassed by Mr. Ravinder Chopra, the learned counsel for the landlord-petitioners that the Courts below erred in holding that the writing dated 23-7-1965 marked 'A' required stamp or registration. The said writing when rendered into English is in the following terms :-