BHOLE RAM Vs. MAHESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.8.1993 by learned Additional District Judge, Hinduan, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1982 passed by A.M. J.M. Hinduan, and dismissing the suit for eviction.

(2.) BRIEF relevant facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit for eviction against the defendant Mahesh Chand with the allegations that two disputed shops adjacent to each other were let out to the defendant respondent. The defendant respondent sub-let one shop, which is without any doors to Shri Nirmal Singh. On this ground he prayed that a decree for eviction be passed against the defendant Mahesh Chand. The trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 23.12.1982. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, defendant Mahesh Chand filed an appeal, which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Hinduan, vide his judgment and decree dated 3.8.1993. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant Mahesh Chand sub-let one shop to Nirmal Singh. Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submits that the trial Court decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of sub-letting but the appellate court erred in reversing the decree of the trial court. He submits that it has been proved from the evidence on record that the defendant sub-let one shop to Nirmal Singh who has been doing business in the name and style of M/s Khalsa Machinery Works. A sign board under the name and style of M/s Khalsa Machinery Works has been affixed on the shop. Nirmal Singh has been doing the business of repairing of engines. He submits that under such circumstances the Court should have drawn inference that the defendant had sub-let one shop to Nirmal Singh. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on Nihal Chand Rameshwar Das v. Vinod Rastogi, 1995(1) RCR 101 (SC), Harish Tondon v. Additional District Magistrate, 1995(1) RCR 217 , and Dial Singh v. Amrish Kumar, 1995(1) RCR 527.

(3.) IN Nihal Chand's case (supra) the Apex Court held that where exclusive possession of sub-tenant was established it was permissible for Court to draw inference that transaction was entered into for monetary consideration. The Apex Court further held that both the lower Courts had found that the premises were sub-let. Under these circumstances the Apex Court did not like to interfere with the findings recorded by both the lower courts.