KULWANT SINGH Vs. SHRI KHARAITI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in revision here is to the wholly unsustainable order of the appellate authority directing the ejectment of the tenant-Kulwant Singh from the demised premises on the ground that he had sub-let them to his son-Kishan Singh and further that he had materially impaired the value and utility thereof.

(2.) A reference to the material on record would show that the tenant-Kulwant Singh is an old man of about 70 years of age, short-sighted and hard of hearing. The case set up by the landlord was that Kulwant Singh had sub-let the shop in question to his son-Kishan Singh, who was running his Chakki (flour-mill) there. Great stress was, in this behalf, laid upon the fact that both the licence for the running of the chakki and the electric connection in the shop stood in the name of the said-Kishan Singh.

(3.) REFERENCE was next made to the inconsistent testimony of the landlord's witnesses with regard to possession of the shop being exclusively with Kishan Singh. It is significant to note that according to the landlord, A.W. 1-Kharaiti Lal, the tenant-Kulwant Singh was working in the shop as an employee. No such plea finds mention in the petition. This statement was no wonder, therefore sought to be construed to mean that on the landlord's own showing exclusive possession of the shop was not with Kishan Singh. The next witness, A.W. 3-Dwarka Dass, on the other hand, deposed that right from the very beginning he had been seeing only Kishan Singh at the shop. The other witness A.W. 4-Ram Murti, however, stated that earlier he had been seeing Kulwant Singh at the shop, but since the last 2 years, he had been seeing only Kishan Singh there. The statement of this witness was recorded in March 1984 which would mean that it was from March 1982, that he had been seeing Kishan Singh at the shop and prior thereto, Kulwant Singh.