SMT. SITA BAI Vs. JAGAT SINGH OF ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has directed this civil revision under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act), against the order of the Appellate Authority. Rohtak confirming the order of Rent Controller regarding the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of sub -letting the shop in dispute.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that Kishan Lal was the owner of Shop No. 2, Ward No. 6, Railway Read, Rohtak. He rented out the same to Maharaj Krishan vide rent note, Exhibit A1, dated 10th August, 1963, at the monthly rent of Rs. 35/ -. Of course that Kishan Lal expired in the month of January, 1970, leaving behind his widow Basanti Devi and adopted son Jagat Singh. The original tenant Maharaj Krishan also expired in the month of June, 1974, leaving behind his widow Smt. Shivan Wati as his legal -representative. The landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of nonpayment of rent since January, 1971, as well as on the ground of sub letting the shop to Sita Ram Respondent No. 2. The tenant resisted this application contending that the shop was taken on rent by Maharaj Krishan and his brother Sita Ram Respondent jointly as both were partners of the firm styled as Maharaj Kishan Sita Ram at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/ -. They however tendered the arrear of rent etc. on the first date of hearing It was further alleged that there was no case of sub -letting of the shop in dispute as Respondent No. 2 along with his brother Maharaj Kishan was co -tenant being partner of the firm. The learned Rent Controller after appraisal of the evidence by both the parties, held that rate of rent to be Rs. 25/ - per month and the tender of rent being valid. He, however, ordered the ejectment of the tenant from the shop in dispute on the ground of sub -letting to Respondent No. 2 by holding that the shop was rented out to Maharaj Kishan only in his personal capacity and the act of his widow Smt. Shivan Wati in entering partnership with Sita Ram, Respondent No. 2 for running the business in the shop in dispute had amounted to sub -letting. On appeal by the tenant, the learned Appellate Authority, Rohtak, confirmed the findings of the Bent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved against the order, the tenant has come up in revision petition.

(3.) THE perusal of rent note, Exhibit A1, executed on the 10th August, 1963 creating a tenancy with effect from the 8th August, 1963 leaves no doubt that Maharaj Kishan had taken the shop on rent in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the firm M/s. Kishan Lal Sita Ram, even though he has described himself as proprietor of M/s. Maharaj Kishan Sita Ram. In the body of the rent note he has given an undertaking in first person not to sublet the same or transfer the tenancy to any person. Thus, there is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the tenant that the shop was taken on rent jointly by Maharaj Kishan and his brother Sita Ram Strange enough, no partnership deed has been brought on the file in order to establish that a partnership firm between Maharaj Kishan and his brother Sita Ram was in existence at that time. On the other hand, Sita Ram while appearing as RW4 had admitted during cross examination that no partnership deed was executed between him and Maharaj Kishan. The matter does not rest here as the receipts Ex. RW4/3 and Ex. RW4/2 regarding the payment of rant for the month of November, 1970 and for the months from August to October 1970, respectively reveal that Maharaj Krishan had paid the rent to the landlord in his individual capacity as there is no mention of the payment of the same on behalf of the partnership -firm. Thus, there is no scope of interfering with the findings of the Appellate Authority in this regard.