UMA RANI Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's revision directed against the order of the Appellate Authority wherebyt Appellate Authority reversed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller against respondents and in consequence thereof dismissed the eviction application of the landlord.

(2.) Ejectment of respondents was sought by the landlord on the ground that the premises had been let out to Mohan Lal-tenant, who in turn, had sublet the same to Ashok Kumar. Against this, case of Ashok Kumar-respondent had been that Mohan Lal was never the tenant and the Rent Note alleged to have been executed by Mohan Lal is a sham and fictitious document.

(3.) Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on holding that the shop had been let out to Mohan Lal and he in turn sublet the same to Ashok Kumar. On appeal by Ashok Kumar, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of Rent Controller and in consequence thereof dismissed the eviction application. The Appellate Authority, on appreciation of evidence on record, found that the shop in dispute had not been let out to Mohan Lal as Mohan Lal never came in possession of the shop. It was rather held that the shop in dispute had been let out to Santosh Lal Pahwa that is predecessor of Ashok Kumar. For coming to this conclusion, the Appellate Authority, took into consideration assessment lists maintained by the Municipal authorities for the years 1973-74, 1975-76, 1977-78 and 1987-88. In the record of the Municipal Committee, Santosh Lal Pahwa had been shown to be in possession of the shop. Appellate Authority also took note of Exhibits R.5 to R.12 showing that Santosh Lal Pahwa had been paying sale tax. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to point out any evidence to show that Mohan Lal ever came in possession of shop. Counsel, however, was unable to point out any evidence in this regard. The only document pointed out was the Rent Note alleged to have been executed by Mohan Lal in favour of his landlord. Rent Note is undated and appears to be for the period 15.6.1969 to 14.7.1970. In case Mohan Lal had had come in possession, how come his possession never came to be recorded with the Municipal authorities. As per the evidence brought on record, Santosh Lal Pahwa has been proved to be in possession since 1969. As the present petition for ejectment was filed on 16.7.1988, there is no explanation from the side of the landlord as to why for all these years the landlord had kept quiet and never thought of filing ejectment application against Santosh Lal Pahwa or Ashok Kumar who is his successor upon former's death on the ground of sub-letting. The view taken by the Appellate Authority is based on correct appreciation of evidence and calls for no interference in revisional jurisdiction.