Ganga Bishan vs Madan Lal and Another

J.M. Tandon, J.—Ganga Bishan Petitioner purchased a vacant site measuring 14 yds�1 yds at Majitha Road, Amritsar from M/s. Phagu Mal Sant Ram on February 27, 1965. Out of this plot, Madan Lal Respondent was. In occupation of a small portion measuring 14"�5" as a tenant. According to the Petitioner, Madan Lal Respondent took another piece of land adjacent to the one already in his occupation from him on rent. Madan Lal was paying Rs. 40/- per month as rent of the piece of land in his occupation before February 27, 1965 and agreed to pay Rs. 60/- per month as rent for the second piece of land which he took on rent from the Petitioner. On July 12, 1972 the Petitioner filed an ejectment petition against Madan Lal and his Father Rattan Chand Respondents on the ground of non payment of rent, sub-letting by Madan Lal in favour of Rattan Chand and for personal requirement. Later on the Petitioner amended the ejectment petition averring that the sub-letting by Madan Lal was in favour of Subhash Chand.

Subhash Chand has not been impleaded as a party. Madan Lal and Rattan Chand Respondents contested the ejectment petition. According to Madan Lal, the entire plot measuring 15'' to 14'' in his occupation was on rent with him at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month since before the purchase made by the Petitioner. He denied subletting either in favour of Rattan Chand or Subhash Chand.

The arrears of rent w.e.f. February 27, 1965 was tendered on the first date of hearing at the rate of Rs. 20/ per month besides interest and costs The tender was accepted by the Petitioner under protect The Rent Controller vide order dated March 29, 1978 held that the tender of arrears of rent was proper and Madan Lal Respondent had not sublet the site in favour of his brother Rattan Chand or Subhash Chand. The plea of the Petitioner regarding bonofide requirement of the site in dispute was negative. The ejectment petition was dismissed. The Petitioner assailed the order of the Rent Controller in appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated October 9, 1981. It is against this order that the present revision is directed.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pressed two points during arguments. The first point argued is that the Rent Controller and the appellate authority have wrongly found that Madan Lal Respondent had not sublet the site in favour of Subhash Chand. The contention is without merit. It was in 1977 that a new plea was raised that the sub-letting had been made in favour of Subhash Chand. Subhash Chand had not been made a party. The Petitioner appeared as a witness and did not state that the subletting had been made in favour of Subhash Chand Virinder Kumar attorney of the Petitioner did so state in his statement recorded on March 3, 1976 whereas the plea regarding sub letting in favour of Subhash Chand was raised later. AW-5 Saran Lal Singh appeared as a witness for the Petitioner and stated that Subhash Chand submitted bill marked ''A'' to the bank in the name of Madan Tea Stall, Majitha Road, Amritsar. The appellate authority has rightly observed that it appears that Subhash Chand at one time was an employee of Madan Lal Respondent who was running the tea stall under the name and style "Madan Tea Stall". The appellate authority has also rightly held that there is no evidence that Subhash Chand was at any time in exclusive possession of the land or in any part thereof or for consideration. The finding of the appellate authority that the Petitioner has failed to establish the subletting of the land by Madan Lal Respondent is affirmed.

The second point raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Courts below have erred in holding that the Petitioner does net require the site in dispute for personal requirement. This contention it also without force. The Petitioner was a resident of Kabul when the ejectment petition was filed in 1972 and 1977 when his statement was recorded by the Rent Controller. According to him, he wanted to shift to Amritsar and start import and export business. The Petitioner admittedly owns shops and vacant site other than the one in dispute in Amritsar. His family resides at Amritsar. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that after getting Madan Lal ejected from the site in dispute he would construct shops and in one of those shops he would start import and export business after shifting from Kabul to Amritsar. The proposed scheme of the Petitioner is rather imaginary. The Petitioner has not shifted from Kabul to Amritsar for year after he filed the ejectment petition. It appears that the Petitioner has set up the plea of starting import and export business at Amritsar as an excuse for getting Madan Lal Respondent ejected, and thereafter to construct shops on the site in dispute which proposition is mere income oriented. The appellate authority has rightly held that the plea of the Petitioner that he requires the site in dispute for his own use is not genuine.

In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.