MANOHAR SINGH SARHADI Vs. RAMJI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) RAMJI Dass landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant Manohar Singh from the property number 4718 consisting of one shop and a chaubara etc. inter alia on the ground that it has been sublet by the tenant to Pritpal Singh respondent No. 2. According to the averments in the ejectment application out of the demised premises the chaubara, Myani and the kitchen as well as the bath room had been sublet to Pritpal Singh respondent No. 2 and therefore, he was liable to ejectment. It is the case of the landlord himself that earlier on 6.2.1963 only the shop portion was given on rent to the tenant Manohar Singh at the rate of Rs. 90/- which was later on enhanced to Rs. 100/- in the year 1976 because of certain constructions made therein. Later on in the year 1976 the landlord also rented out the chaubara portion at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. Thus, according to the landlord the entire premises was on rent with the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the tenant as well as by the alleged sub-tenant Pritam Singh, it was pleaded that the tenant has neither sublet the first floor, nor he has transferred his right under the lease to respondent No. 2. The latter is staying there temporarily only to keep guard on the arms and ammunition at all hours (in the unavoidable absence of respondent No. 1 and his partner) as a worker of respondent No. 1 and his firm. Moreover, respondent No. 2 is a nephew of respondent No. 1 and a brother and member of joint family of Shri Ishat Pal Singh who is a partner with the tenant in the firm. An additional plea was taken in the written statement that the application as such was not maintainable in its present form as it relates to separate tenancies for ground floor and the other for the first floor. The learned Rent Controller relying upon the judgment of this Court reported as Gobind Kam v. Godha Ram, 1979(2) RCR 255 came to the conclusion that single application for ejectment from the entire premises was maintainable. Though it was observed by the Rent Controller that there was no dispute that the lower portion is non-residential part and is being used as shop whereas upper portion was being used as residence as admitted by Pritpal Singh respondent No. 2 in his statement. It was further found by the Rent Controller that the tenant Manohar Singh has sublet the part of the premises to Pritpal Singh respondent No. 2 and, therefore, he was liable to be ejected. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on 7.8.1984. In appeal the said finding of the Rent Controller was maintained by the appellate authority.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that it was one tenancy as the entire building was let out both for residential as well as for business purposes. According to the learned counsel, Pritpal Singh was residing in the residential portion as found by both the authorities below and, therefore, it being a finding of fact should not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.