S.S. Jain Sabha (Regd ) and others vs Surinder Kumar and another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s petition, against whom the eviction application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but in appeal the ejectment order was passed by the Appellate Authority.

Surinder Kumar landlord sough ejectment of his tenant Banarasi Dass on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from 30th March, 1971 and on the ground of sub-letting by Banarsi Dass to S. S. Jain Sabha respondent No. 2. It was averred in the petition that the building in dispute was originally let out by Sohan Lal to Banarsi Dass tenant at the rate of Rs. 125/- per annum and in this respect rent note Ex. PA was executed. Later on in partition of the joint family this property fell to the share of Surinder Kumar landlord-petitioner. Banarsi Dass respondent then executed a fresh rent note Ex. PB on 30th March, 1965 in favour of Surinder Kumar whereby he agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 500/- per annum. It was stipulated therein that without the consent of the landlord the tenant will not sublet the property. In spite of that the tenant has sublet the same to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who were running a school under the name and style of S. M. Jain Model School, Bhatinda. Joint written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents. It was maintained that the building was originally taken on rent for the purposes of a school by Banarsi Dass and the school was started under the name and style of S. S. Jain Sabha School which was initially managed by Banarsi Dass. Later on the management was taken over by S. Jain Sabha (Registered) and the name of the school was changed to S. M. Jain Model School, Bhatinda. It was denied that Banarsi Dass has sublet the bulding to respondents Nos. 2 and 3. According to the written statement, from the very inception of the tenancy the building was taken by Banarsi Dass for the purposes of runing a school and the same school is being run uptill now. However, the management has been taken over by the S. S Jain Sabha (Regd.). On the first date of hearing, Banarsi Dass tendered the arrears of rent which were accepted by the landlord. The Rent Controller found that Banarsi Dass was not the tenant of the premises in dispute and he had not sublet the same to respondents Nos 2 and 3. Since, according to the Rent Controller, the arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing, no ejectment order could be passed on that ground. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of subletting. It was found that it was Banarsi Dass to whom the building was given in his personal capacity and not on behalf of any school. Now, admittedly Banarsi Dass tenant has nothing to do either with the school or its management and was a broker by profession and therefore it was a clear case of subletting. In view of that finding, the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the S.S. Jain Sabha (Regd.) has filed this petition in this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Rent Controller rightly found that the building was rented out to Banarsi Dass for running a school. According to the learned counsel of that finding has been reversed in arbitrarily and against the evidence on record.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on record, I do not find any merit in this petition. In both the rent notes Exs. PA and PB there is no mention that the building was given on rent to Banarsi Dass for running a school. Banarsi Dass admitted his signatures on the rent notes but maintained that his signatures were obtained on blank forms and the same were got filled in lateron by Sohan Lal or Surinder Kumar. He could not furnish any explanation as to under what circumstances he had put his signatures on blank forms. The Appellate Authority was not convinced with the explanation offered by him and held that these rent notes were duly executed by him. Not only that, there is no evidence on the record to show that the school management ever paid any rent of the demised premises to the landlord Sohan Lal or Surinder Kumar. In case the building was taken on rent for running a school and it was the school management which was paying the rent, then there must have been some entries showing payment of rent on behalf of the school. No accounts were produced on behalf of the school to prove this fact. Under these circumstances the Appellate Authority rightly observed that the respondents intentionally withheld the accounts raised a presumption that had the same been produced then they would have been able to support their case.

Under these circumstances, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. However the petitioner is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and advance rent for this period is deposited with the Rent Controller within one month from today with an undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period the premises will be vacated and its vacant possession will be handed ever to the landlord.