HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. SAVTRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenants" revision petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the trial Court, but eviction order was passed in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord Capt. Ved Parkash, sought the ejectment of his tenants Harcbaran Singh and Surinder Singh, by the ejectment application dated December 3, 19/9, from the shop cum -flat No. 32, Sector 21 C, Chandigarh, on the allegations that the said building was let out to the said two tenants on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/- in addition to the water and electricity charges and a rent note to that effect was written The jectment was inter alia sought on the ground of subletting. It was alleged that the tenants had sublet different portions of the building to respondents Nos. 3 to 7 in the ejectment application without the previous permission, in writing, of the landlord. In paragraph 4 of the ejectment application it was averred that respondents Nos. 3 to 7 were in occupation of some or other portions of the building in dispute viz. respondent No 3 was in occupation of first florr and respondent No. 4 was in occupatioa of barsati floor a ad that respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were in occupation of the backyard on the ground floor of the building. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenants, the said allegations were denied. It was pleaded that they were inducted as tenants on cue demised premises in the year 1966 at a monthly rent of Rs. 409/ -. In November, 1968, the rent was increased to Rs. 500/ -. In November 1971, the rent was increased to Rs. 625/- per month. This increase in the rate of rent was made on the threat of eviction which the petitioner held out by service of the notice dated September 28, 1971, Exhibit RW5/a. The said notice was withdrawn after the rent was increased to Rs. 625/ per month. This rate of continued till the tenats again received another notice of eviction dated October 15,1974, Exhibit RW5/b. Consequently, the rent was again increased in March, 1975, from Rs 625/- per month to Rs. 750/- per month and also a fresh rent deed was executed between the parties and a new tenancy came into existence. It was denied that the premises were sublet as alleged. According to the tenants, the premises, in question, were being used strictly by them and that they were in exclusive possession thereof and no part or a portion thereof was ever sublet to any respondent. In paragraph 4 of the written statement, it was further reiterated that the entire building from the ground to the barsati floor including the back courtyard was in use and occupation of respondents No. 1 and 2 exclusively. In the replication filed on behalf of the landlord, it was admitted that the tenants were inducted in the year 1966 on a monthly rent of Rs. 409/- and with their consent, the rent was enhanced as stated in the written statement. It was also admitted that a notice was served on the ground of subletting, as the tenants had sublet the premises to various tenants whose names were mentioned in the notice itself. The tenants subsequently approached the petitioner and entered into a new lease deed and got the shop evicted from the said sub tenants. The rent was also enhanced from Rs. 625/- to Rs 750/- per mensem.

(3.) THE main controversy between the parties before the Rent Controller was whether the tenants had sublet the premises after the 1st of March, 1975, when the new tenancy was created and a rent note was executed The Kent Controller came to the conclusion that the ejectment application prima facie appears to be another attempt on the part of the petitioner to force the respondents to increase the rent otherwise they did not have any evidence on the file that may show that on the day of the filing of the petition or from March, 1975, any portion of the building, in question, was occupied by any sub-tenant. Consequently, it was found that the landlord had failed to prove that the tenants had sublet any portion to any of the respondents, as alleged, after the new tenancy was created on March 1,1975. In appeal, the Appellate Authority, reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that subletting by the tenants after March 1, 1975, to Tikka Singh, respondent No. 3 and Gurjit Singh, respondent No 4, was amply proved on the record. The learned Appellate Authority also found :-" thus as per his own admission a portion of the demised premises had been let out to Tikka Singh prior to the service of notice Ex. RW5/b. According to this tenant, the same had been got vacated when the new tenancy came into being. It is this admission by the tenant plus ration card Ex. R. 1 and voters' list Ex. P. 1 and P. 2 which lend weight to the oral testimony of the landlord and his brother Major Hardev AW 5 of course notice Ex. RW5/b indicates that the landlord wanted the eviction of the tsaants from the demised premises because of alleged sub-letting to Tikka Singh and five others by the tenants so that Tikka Singh was a tenant at that time also. " In view of this finding, the eviction order was passed on November 22, 1983.