Punjab-Haryana High Court
Aroor Chand vs Arora Textile Shuttle Works And Ors. on 31 July, 1989
Equivalent citations: (1990)97PLR222
JUDGMENT M.S. Liberhan, J.
1. The ejectment of the respondent-tenant was sought by the landlord-petitioner, inter -alia, on the grounds of non payment of rent sub-letting, by respondent No. 1 to respondents Nos 4 to 7, and ceasing to occupy the shop in dispute by respondent No. 1.
2. The respondents denied the relationship, of landlord and tenant and contended that respondent No. 7, Balwant Singh was the, owner of the firm M/s Arpra Sauttle Works Jandiala Gunu. He took the premises in dispute from Aroor Chand, Harbans Lal and Pal Dass. He continues to be a partner of respppdnts Nos.4 to 7 and sever parted with the possession of the demised premises. The rent was tendered but was not accepted by the landlord.
3. The Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the respondents holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenants ; Balwant Singh respondent No. 7 was neither the owner nor a partner of respondent No. 1 -the tenant firm inducted by the landlord. The tender of rent by respondent No. 7 was found to be not valid.
4. The tenant-respondents preferred an appeal which was accepted and the petition for ejectment of the tenants was dismissed. The Appellate, Authority found that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner, and the respondents. It was further found that the shop in dispute was never sub let nor it was taken on lease by respondent. No. l through Shori Lal as averred. The contention of the landlord petitioner that Balwant Singh respondent. No. 7 was an employee off respondent No. 1 was rejected. The tender of rent was found to be valid.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority in this revision, petition and contends that the finding with respect to issue No. 1 to the effect that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents cannot be sustained. It is contended that the petitioner claimed to be the land lord and, a specific issue was framed with respect to the relationship of landlord and tenant inter se the parties. The parties were well aware of the facts they were to prove. The land- lord produced the settlement deed between Pal Dass, Aroor Chand and Harbans Lal, according to Which the Shop in dispute has fallen to the share of petitioner landlord Aroor Chand.
6. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner-landlord has acquired the title of the shop in dispute under the said memorandum of partition and has become owner thereof. In view of this, it cannot be disputed that even if the respondents had taken the shop in dispute on lease from Pal Dass as averred by them; the petitioner being the successor of Pal Dass will be the landlord by operation of law. In the course of arguments, ;it is accepted that the petitioner is the landlord of the shop in dispute,
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the finding with respect to the sub letting of the shop in dispute by M/s. Arora Textile Shuttle Works, Jandlala Guru to respondents Nos. 4 to , 7. It is contended that in the written statement, it is no where stated that Balwant Singh was the owner of M/s Arbra Textile Shuttle Works. It has not been proved on record that Balwant Singh was the partner of M/s Arora Textile Shuttle Works, Jandiala Guru. I view of this, there is no evidence on record to prove that Balwant Singh respondent No. 7 was a tenant of the petitioner or his predecessor. In ,view, of the admitted fact that a new firm of which Balwant Singh is the proprietor, is running the business in the demised premises, exclusive possession of Balwant Singh is proved who was never a tenant of the petitioner. Consequently, the sub letting of the demised premises by respondent No. 1 to Balwant Singh respondent No. 7 and the firm constituted by him consisting of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 is proved.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents refutes the said submissions and contends that the Appellate Authority after appraisal of the oral as well as the documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that it was Balwant Singh who was inducted as a tenant in the premises in dispute on rent at the rate of Rs. 1750 per month. There is no parting with the possession. The version given by the landlord that the demised premises was leased out to M/s Arora Textile Shuttle Works-respondent No. 1 through Shori Lal has not been proved. Consequently, the petitioner having failed to prove the sub letting, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. In my considered view, there is no force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The undisputed facts that have emerged from the evidence on record are to the effect that three shops were leased out by Pal Dass predecessor in-interest of the petitioner. It has come in evidence on record that with respect to one shop the rent note was executed which is Exhibit A-1. It is admitted by Harbans Lal that in the said rent note Balwant Singh has described himself to be "Yake Az Malik" i.e. sole proprietor of M/s Arora Textile Shuttle Works. It is again not disputed that from the very inception of the tenancy till date, the rent was being paid by Balwant Singh as would be, obvious from the receipts Exhibits R-l to R-77. There is nothing on record except the bare statement of the landlord that the premises in dispute were leased out to M/s Arora Textile Shuttle Works through Sheri Lal which for the reasons recorded by the Appellate Authority has not been believed. No impropriety or illegality is the said finding has been pointed out. Otherwise also, for the reasons recorded by the Appellate Authority and after going through the evidence on record, I am also of the view that the premises in dispute was in fact leased out to respondent No. 1 through Balwant Singh who was the sole proprietor of the firm.
10. It is not disputed in the course of arguments or otherwise also that Balwant Singh continues to be the partner of the firm constituted by respondents Nos. 4 to 7. In view of this fact, it cannot be assumed that exclusive possession of the demised premises was parted with by Balwant Singh tenant. It is one of the accepted principles that in order to establish sub-letting one has to show parting with the exclusive possession and creating interest in the tenancy by the tenant in favour of a third person. Nothing has come on record to prove creation of any interest in favour of a third person by the tenant or parting with the exclusive possession. In view of this, sub letting is not proved.
11. It is out disputed that the rent was tendered by the tenant and nothing has bean pointed out how the tender was invalid.
12. In view of my observations made above, I find no force in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs To be fair to the landlord, keeping in view the pettiness of the amount of rent viz Rs. 1750 p. m of the shop in dispute, the respondent tenants offered to increase the rent to double the amount but since the landlord is not there to accept the same, no order is being passed. However, I hope the tenant will keep the offer open for acceptance by the landlord.