Gulzar Singh vs Nanak Chand and Others

V.K. Bali, J.—Revision herein is against the concurrent orders rendered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. Whereas the Rent Controller dismissed the petition of the petitioner-landlord vide orders dated 4.12.1979, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 16th of September, 1980.

Petitioner had sought eviction of tenant Nanak Chand and alleged subtenants Mohan & Gopi Chand on the ground of non-payment of rent and that the original tenant Nanak Chand has sublet the premises without written consent of the petitioner. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment on the grounds mentioned at para No. 6 of the petition? OPA

1-A. Whether Sh. N.K. Sehgal is the authorised agent of Sat Parkas, Dharamvir as alleged in the written statement filed by defendant No. 3? If so its effect. OPR3.

Relief."

After resultant trial, as mentioned above, petitioner was unable to secure an order of eviction on the two grounds noted above.

Mr. Gill, learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority are vitiated. It is proved on the record of the case by documentary evidence that Nanak Chand was the tenant. He states that it is proved on the records by way of documentary evidence that the petitioners had purchased the booth on 10.9.1976 from Sat Parkash and Dharamvir and that in the agreement of sale it is specifically recited that Nanak Chand is the tenant already occupying the premises in dispute. Petitioner appeared in the witness box too and confirmed that Nanak Chand was inducted as a tenant by him. All these facts have not been taken into consideration, further contends the learned counsel. The matter has been decided in favour of the respondents by and large on the ground that Nanak Chand is an employee of the Engineering College and therefore, could not be occupying the premises in dispute. This presumption counsel states could not be drawn. The matter, on the other hand, had to be decided on the basis of oral and documentary evidence."

I have heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner but do not find merit in any of the contentions noted above. In so far as agreement of sale or even for that matter sale deed is concerned, it is not an inter-parties document. Concededly, these documents are between the petitioner and his vendors. Recital made in the said documents could not be binding upon the respondents. That apart, when the Attorney of the petitioner appeared in the witness box, he stated in his cross examination that Nanak Chand and Gopi Chand had contacted him and rent amounting to Rs. 300/- was received in advance from Gopi Chand. He further admitted that thereafter Gopi Chand was sending rent by money order which was accepted by him. Gopi Chand appeared as RW-1 and stated that he took the shop on rent from Sat Parkash and paid rent. He further stated that Nanak Chand was employee in the Punjab Engineering College and he never took the shop on rent. Som Nath RW-2 deposed that Gopi Chand has been working in the shop in dispute for the last 6/7 years. In view of the admissions made by the attorney of the Vendor, whatever little evidentiary value might have been attached to the documents i.e. agreement to sell and the sale deed, the same lost its efficacy. It may be mentioned here that Gopi Chand is brother-in-law of Nanak Chand and therefore, it is possible that both of them might have gone together to request that the demised premised be rented out initially when the same was let out. The Appellate Authority based upon documentary evidence, in my view, came to a right conclusion that Nanak Chand was never inducted as a tenant and that initially the booth was taken on rent by Gopi Chand. The learned Appellate Authority was not wrong in drawing support for the aforesaid conclusion from the fact that so far as Nanak Chand is concerned, he is regular employee of the Punjab Engineering College. No illegality or infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned orders.

Finding no merit in this revision, I dismiss the same leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.

Learned counsel for the respondent does not press C.M. Nos. 15468 and 15469-CII of 1998 and the same are dismissed as such.