Inder Singh vs Smt. Sudarshan Sood and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—The tenant Petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, I udhiana, dated 27th November, 1978, whereby the landlord''s appeal was accepted and the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant.

Smt Sudarshan Sood wife of Sh. Raj Guru Sood filed an application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. seeking eviction of the tenant (Inder Singh) from a shop situated at Kailash Cinema Road, ludhiana. The ejecimeat was claimed on the grounds of non payment of rent and subletting. However, in the present petition only the ground of subletting subsists, on which the orders of ejectment have been passed by the Appellate Authority. It was pleaded in the petition that Inder Singh had without her consent transferred the possession of the shop in dispute to Gurdip Singh, who was carrying on his business under the name and Style of Jawahar Cloth House As Inder Singh had completely parted with the possession of the shop in favour of Gurdip Singh, it was pleaded that he had sublet the Shop to him. A notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was also served on Inder Sirgh on 7th September, 1973, who sent a reply to the same on 11th September, 1973. The tenant contested the application on the ground that the shop in dispute was ever taken on rent by Inder Singh but it was taken on rent by Gurdip Singh from Shri Raj Guru, husband of the landlady. It was maintained that from the very inception of the tenancy, Gurdip Singh had been carrying on his cloth business in the shop and paying rent to his landlord Shri Raj Guru It was further stated that Inder Singh bad been running his hotel business since long and the shop in suit was required by Gurdip singh for runnirg his business of a cloth dealer ; that as. Inder Singh and Gurdip Singh are real brothers, they approached Raj Guru, husband of the landlady, and requested him to give the shop it suit on rent to Gurdip Singh ; that the shop was taken on rent from Raj Guru, specifically on the understanding that it would be used by Gurdip Singh It was further alleged that both the brothers are joint in mess, worship, business and other activities and they constitute a Joint Hindu Family. However, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:

Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 ? OPA.

Whether Respondents are liable to ejectment on the grounds given in para 5 (b) of the petition ? OPA

Whether the notice is not valid ? if so its effect. OPR.

Relief.

The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that the landlord has failed to prove the ground of subletting, as the premises were taken on rent by Gurdip Singh alone from the landlord In appeal filed by the landlord, the Appellate Authority has set aside that finding of the Rent Controller and it has been held "that the Petitioner succeeded in proving that she had given the shop in suit to Inder Singh, Respondent No. 1, who sublet it to Gurdip Singh, Respondent No, 2." On this finding, the tenant was ordered to be ejected from the premises. Now the tenant has come up in revision against the said order of the Appellate Authority

The learned Counsel for the tenant vehemently argued that the Appellate Authority has not considered the material evidence on the record and has wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the shop was given to inder Singh tenant and he had sublet the same to Gurdip Singh The learned Counsel further contended that the evidence was rightly considered by the Rent Controller and the findings arrived at by him should not have been set aside by the Appellate Authority. It was also contended that in any case even if it may be held that the shop was given on rent to Inder Singh, Gurdip Singh being his real brother could not be held to be a sub tenant under the tacts and circumstances of the present case, particularly when it was pleaded that they are joint in business and residence, etc.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition. Inder Singh has been found to be a liar by the Appellate Authority, particularly when he denied the receipt of any notice and the reply given by him through his counsel Shri Ram Singh, Advocate, who has appeared in the witness-box as A W. 1 and said that this reply had been drafted by him at the instance of Inder Singh and it was signed by him. He has also been found to be false when he stated that he did not remember if he had sent any money order for Rs 510/(sic) from Post Office Satsang Road, to the landlord The Appellate Authority has categorically observed that ''this evidence conclusively proved that Inder Singh had remitted a sum of Rs 510/- by money order to Smt Surdarshan Sood, who had refused to accept it and the amount was paid back to Inder Singh This is a strong circumstance which gives credence to the evidence of the Petitioner, that letter Ex. A/l, had been sent by Inder Singh Respondent in reply to the notice, cops whereof is Ex. A/2." As regards the plea Out Inder Singh and Gurdip Singh are the members of a Joint Hindu Family and carry on joint business, it has been held by the Appellate Authority that "it it also not mentioned in it that Inder Singh and Gurdip Singh were the members of a joint Hindu Family, and the business carried on in this shop was joint Hindu Family business. This appears to be an after thought, on the part of the Respondents with a view to avoid the eviction of the Respondent No. 2, who is in actual physical possession of this shop". These are all findings of fact arrived at after the appreciation of evidence on the record. Once the tenant takes a false plea and is found to be a liar by the Appellate Authority, it is not for this Court to reappraise the evidence afresh in the exercise of revislonal jurisdiction. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that Inder Singh has taken a false plea, which he has failed to prove by evidence on the record He has gone even to the extent of saying that he did not give any reply to the notice given by the landlord, whereas he is being contradicted by the lawyer Shri Ram Singh, Aavocate who has appeared as A w. 1 and whose statement has been accepted by the Appellate Authority to be true Admittedly, the shop is now in exclusive possession of Gurdip Singh, who is running his business of a cloth dealer under the name of Jawahar Cloth House and the plea of tenant Inder Singh that this is the business of a Joint Hindu Family hat not been believed by the Appellate Authority Moreover, the accounts of this business were not produced on the record Thus, the Appellate Authority has arrived at a right conclusion, that the premises in dispute had been given on rent by Inder Singh to Gurdip Singh.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Cost assessed at Rs. 300/-.