Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2004) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10367 = 2004 L.A.R. 514
Decided on 19.05.2004
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Advocate with Mr. Sahilendra Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Harsh Rekha, Advocate.
A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 (2)(ii)(a) – Sub-letting – Onus to prove – Tenant has to prove that he is direct tenant of landlord -- No rent receipt with regard to payment of rent to the landlord has been produced so as to arrive at a finding that he was not sub-tenant but was direct tenant of landlord – Eviction order upheld.
Nothing has been brought on record to show whether there was any written consent given by the landlord by which he agreed to the sub-tenancy created in favour of the petitioner. Both the Courts have rightly held that the premises in dispute were sub-let by Ved Parkash in favour of the petitioner. The stand of the petitioner-tenant is that the shop in question was rented out to him by the landlord directly. However, no receipt with regard to payment of rent has been shown by the petitioner so as to arrive at a finding that he was not sub-tenant of Ved Parkash but was the direct tenant of Brij Mohan landlord. The onus to prove whether the petitioner was a direct tenant of the landlord was on him. It was for him to prove whether he was direct tenant or not. The petitioner having failed to do so, the findings of both the Courts below on issue No.2 are also upheld.
(Para 6)
B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 15 – Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference in the concurrent finding of fact given by the Rent Controller and the Appellate authority, in exercising the revisional jurisdiction is not justified in view of judgment rendered in Atma S. Berar's case 2003(2) SCC 3.
Both the Courts below have held that the premises in dispute have been sub-let by Ved Parkash in favour of the petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh, (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 3, has held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority merely because it was inclined to take a different view. In view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere therein.
(Para 7)
Cases referred:
1. Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh, (2003) 2 S.C.C. 3.
JUDGMENT
Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (Oral) – Landlord Brij Mohan (respondent No.1) filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of the tenants Jagdish Singh petitioner and Ved Parkash (respondent No.2). In the application for eviction, it was alleged that the shop situated in Chhota Chowk, Sangrur, was rented out by Brij Mohan to Ved Parkash on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- vide rent note dated 2.6.1966 and the said Ved Parkash sublet the premises to Jagdish Singh on a monthly rent of Rs.67/-. It was further averred that the tenants did not pay any rent or house tax for the premises taken by them on rent.
2. The averments of the landlord were controverted by the tenants by filing separate written statements. It was stated by Ved Parkash (respondent No.2), the original tenant, that the premises had been taken on rent by him on 28.6.1966 from the landlord and he had sublet the same to Jagdish Singh (petitioner herein), but with the consent of the landlord. Jagdish Singh has also filed his written statement wherein it was claimed by him that he was a direct tenant under the landlord and, therefore, the alleged sub-tenancy was denied. The Rent controller framed the following three issues:-
“1. Whether respondent No. 1 has sublet the shop in question to respondent No. 2 without the written consent of the petitioner? O.P.A.
2. Whether respondent No. 2 has taken the premises on rent directly from the petitioner? .. .. .. .. OPR-2.
3. Whether respondent No. 1 is liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent? .. .. .. .. OPA.
4. Relief.”
3. On issue No.1 it was held by the Rent Controller that the shop in question had been sublet by Ved Parkash to Jagdish Singh without the written consent of the landlord. With regard to issue No.2 it was held by the Rent Controller that respondent No.2 Jagdish Singh (petitioner herein) did not take the shop on rent directly from the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein). Consequently, the application for eviction filed by Brij Mohan (respondent No.1) was allowed by the Rent Controller and the tenants were ordered to be evicted from the shop in question vide judgment dated 19.11.1981. Jagdish Singh, the sub-tenant of Ved Parkash tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Sangrur, who vide judgment dated 18.11.1983 upheld the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. It is against this appeal that the present revision petition has been filed by Jagdish Singh, sub-tenant of Ved Parkash.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the alleged rent note (Ex.P1) executed by petitioner Jagdish Singh in favour of Ved Parkash has been produced by landlord Brij Mohan and that the said document (Ex.P1) was a fabricated document. It is contended that in case it was executed in favour of Ved Parkash, then it could have been produced by Ved Parkash and not by the landlord. Thus, it is contended that no reliance could be placed on the alleged rent note executed by the petitioner in favour of Ved Parkash tenant. It has further been argued that the original rent note (Ex.P5/A) executed by Ved Parkash in favour of Brij Mohan was also not properly produced because neither the scribe nor any witness was produced to prove the document. It is contended that this document was got proved by the son of the scribe because the scribe had died and the second witness had also died. Because of the execution of the document (Ex.PW5/A) it cannot be said that the premises were rented out to Ved Parkash initially. It is also contended that there is no proof that the possession of the premises was ever handed over by Brij Mohan to Ved Parkash. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that the premises were initially let out by the landlord to the petitioner and the petitioner was not sub-tenant of Ved Parkash.
5. The arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner have been controverted by the counsel appearing for the landlord. It is contended that in paragraph 6 of the written statement filed by Ved Parkash it has been stated that the premises in dispute had been let out with the written consent of the landlord. It has further been contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 (landlord) that as the scribe and one of the witnesses had died, the son of the deed writer, namely, Basheshar Sarup (P.W.1) proved the rent note (Ex.PW-5/A). The rent note executed by Jagdish Singh in favour of Ved Parkash (Ex.P1) was also proved by examining P.W.2 Kapur Chand scribe and Ved Parkash (R.W.1). It is contended that both the scribe Kapoor Chand (P.W.3) and Ved Parkash (R.W.1) have stated in their depositions that the premises had been let out to the petitioner. Kapur Chand, scribe of the rent note (Ex.P1), proved the execution of the document and stated that the premises were let out by Ved Parkash with the consent of the landlord. It has lastly been contended that there was no evidence on record to prove that there was any tenancy created by the landlord in favour of the petitioner.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. With regard to issue No.1, i.e., whether the shop in question was let out by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2, there is admission by Ved Parkash that the premises were let out to the petitioner with the consent of the landlord. The rent note (Ex.PW5/A) was also produced by the landlord. Nothing has been brought on record to show whether there was any written consent given by the landlord by which he agreed to the sub-tenancy created in favour of the petitioner. Both the Courts have rightly held that the premises in dispute were sub-let by Ved Parkash in favour of the petitioner. The stand of the petitioner-tenant is that the shop in question was rented out to him by the landlord directly. However, no receipt with regard to payment of rent has been shown by the petitioner so as to arrive at a finding that he was not sub-tenant of Ved Parkash but was the direct tenant of Brij Mohan landlord. The onus to prove whether the petitioner was a direct tenant of the landlord was on him. It was for him to prove whether he was direct tenant or not. The petitioner having failed to do so, the findings of both the Courts below on issue No.2 are also upheld.
7. Apart from the above, the findings of fact are being assailed in the present revision petition. Both the Courts below have held that the premises in dispute have been sub-let by Ved Parkash in favour of the petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh, (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 3, has held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority merely because it was inclined to take a different view. In view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere therein.
8. In view of the above, the findings of the Rent controller as well as of the Appellate Authority are upheld and the revision petition is dismissed. The petitioner is given three months time to vacate the premises in question.
Petition dismissed.
********