Agya Wati vs Hira Singh and others

S.P. Goyal, J.—The Petitioner filed this petition for ejectment of the Respondents on a number of grounds but the one which survives for this revision is only that of sub-letting.

The premises in dispute were taken on lease by Hira Singh in the year 1954 and since then a saw mill is being run thereon. It is alleged that Hira Singh is no more in occupation of the premises in dispute and he has sublet it to Kehar Singh, his son. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority has recorded a concurrent finding that Hira Singh and Kehar Singh both were running the saw mill and as Hira Singh has become old, Kehar Singh is now running the business. The relationship between them being that of father and son and it having been proved that they were running the business jointly from the very inception, no fault can be found with the concurrent finding of the Courts below that there was no subletting by Hira Singh to Kehar Singh of the premises in dispute. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, urged that Hira Singh having not appeared in the witness box, a presumption should have been raised against the Respondents. I find no merit in this contention. Even one witness of the Petitioner admitted that Hira Singh bad grown quite old and in these circumstances his non-production is of no consequence. At best, the Petitioner from the statement of Hira Singh could establish that he was not working in the premises in dispute now and this fact has not been disputed. In spite of this fact the two courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that there was no subletting on the basis of other evidence and the attending circumstances. The said finding, therefore, could not be challenged on the ground that Hira Singh was not produced in the witness box. The Learned Counsel also relied on two decisions in Hem Raj v. Jagdish Singh (1967) 69 P.L.R.D. 142, and Firm Shiv Sharan Krishan Kumar and Anr. v. Lata Maharaj Mal and Ors. (1967) 69 P.L.R. 16 (S.N.), to show that on the facts stated above, subletting in favour of Kehar Singh stands established. Both these decisions are distinguishable and have no bearing on the present case. This petition consequently has no merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.