Surinder Kapoor vs Smt. Lajwanti

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The challenge in revision here is to the finding of the Appellate Authority holding that there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between Smt. Lajwanti and the petitioner Surinder Kapoor

The matter here arises from a petition for ejectment filed by Smt. Lajwaati against Surninder Kapoor on the ground of non-paymeat of arrears of rent, personal necessity, change of user and material impairment of the value and utility of the demised premises by the construction made thereon by Surinder Kapoor without her consent.

The petitioner-Surinder Kapoor, on his part, denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Smt. Lajwanti and pleaded therefore, that she was not entitled to seek his ejectment. According to him, the premises had been let out to him by Surinder Kumar who was thus his landlord and further that he had been paying him rent regularly. The other pleas raised for his ejectment were also denied.

The main point for consideration is with regard to the plea concerning the relationship of landlord and tenant between Surinder Kapoor and Smt. Lajwanti. In dealing with this matter, it deserves note at the very out-set that there is admittedly no rent note or other document with regard to the letting out of the demised premises to Surinder Kapoor. There is no dispute that he is uadoubtedly occupying them as a tenant. The only receipt sought to be relied upon by him in support of his claim that his landlord was Surinder Kumar and not Smt. Lajwanti, is exhibit R.W. 4/1. This purports to bear the signatures of Surinder Kumar. A reference to the material on record would show that when A. W. 2-Surinder Kumar came into the witness box, he not only denied that he was the petitioner''s landlord, but also and more specifically his purported signatures on the receipt exhibit exhibit R. W. 4/1. In order, therefore, to establish that the signatures thereon were indeed those of Surinder Kumar the petitioner examined R. W. 3 -Kuljit Singh, whom he sought to brand as a handwriting expert. This Kuljit Singh has not been shown to have any qualifications to warrant him being considered to be a hand-writing expert. He has no Diploma or other qualification to render him such. All that he could say in support was that he had acquired this experience by assisting his father Not only this, another feature of this receipt exhibit R. W. 4/1 is that it purports to be for premises in Durga Nagar Colony, whereas, in fact, the demised premises are located in Shankerpuri Colony. The scribe of this receipt R. W. 2-Dharam Vir is admittedly a friend of the petitioner-Surinder Kapoor.

Further, there is ample material available on record to show that Smt. Lajwanti is the owner of the demised premises. She has also brought on record exhibits A/5, A/7, A/10, A/13 and A/14 being representations made by her to the Municipal Committee against the unauthorised construction being made on the demised premises by Surinder Kapoor.

Such thus being the state of evidence, no exception can be taken to the finding of the Appellate Authority that the petitioner-Surinder Kapoor was indeed a tenant under Smt. Lajwanti. It follows from this that the construction that Surinder Kapoor has made in the demised premises was without the consent of Smt. Lajwanti. Indeed, even A.W. 2-Surinder Kumar stated that the construction bad been made without his consent either. There is, at any rate, no written consent from any one forthcoming.

There is also ample evidence on record to establish the plea of Smt. Lajwanti that the premises had been let out for residential purposes, but they are in fact being used for a wholly different purpose namely ; running of a factory

Personal necessity of Smt. Lajwanti for the demised premises also stands established by the fact that she has not been shown to be in the possession of any other premises and there is no evidence to create any doubt in her statement that she has been constrained to live in the Mandir as she had no other place to go to.

The impugned order of the Appellate Authority thus warrants no Interference in revision. This revision is accordingly hereby dismissed with costs Counsel fee Rs. 300/-.