Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagan Nath And Anr. vs Durga Datt And Ors. on 21 December, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)124PLR846
Author: V.S. Aggarwal
Bench: V.S. Aggarwal
JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by Jagan Nath and another (hereinafter described, as "the petitioners") directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Rohtak, dated 2.12.1980 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Rohtak dated 7.5.1981. The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioners. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority.
2. The short question that came up for consideration in the present revision petition is about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties because it is not in controversy that if the petitioners are the tenants in the suit premises, necessarily the petition for eviction filed by the respondents will not be maintainable.
3. This question arises as a result of the following facts. Respondents Durga Datt and Suraj .Parkash had filed a petition for eviction of the petitioners asserting that Hans Raj, respondent No. 3, is a tenant in the suit property and the petitioners are the sub-tenants in the said property. The petition for eviction was filed on a number of grounds, namely, that the tenant has failed to pay or tender the arrears of rent from 1.1.1974, he had sublet the premises; the tenant had diminished the value and utility of the suit premises; the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation; and bhatties had been set up which are a source of nuisance.
4. The learned Rent Controller held there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between respondents No. 1 and 2 on one, side and respondent No. 3 on the other side. The petitioners were held to be sub-tenants and accordingly an order of eviction was passed.
5. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed.
6. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed.
7. On behalf of the respondents, it was urged that there is a finding of fact returned that it was respondent No. 3 who was a tenant in the suit property and, therefore, this Court will not interfere in the finding of fact that had been so recorded. This controversy as to the scope of interference by the High Court has been settled by the Supreme Court and reference can well be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Rajbir Kaur and Anr. v. S. Chokosiri and Co., A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1845, wherein it was held as under:-
".....When the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are supportable on the evidence on record, the revisional Court must, indeed, be reluctant to embark upon an independence reassessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence on record admitted and supported the one reached by the Courts below. With respect to the High Court, we are afraid, the exercise made by it in its revisional jurisdiction incurs the criticism that the concurrent finding of fact of the courts below could not be dealt and supplanted by a different finding arrived at on an independent reassessment of evidence as was done in this case ..."
8. It is obvious from the aforesaid that this Court will only interfere if the findings arrived at by the authorities under the Rent Act are erroneous, absurd or there is misreading of evidence and not otherwise.
9. Reliance strongly has been placed on the purported rent note Exhibit AW4/1 to urge that this document clearly show respondent No. 3 being a tenant in the suit property and the petitioners could not be the tenants as such. While dealing with the said document, the learned Rent Controller firstly recorded that he has compared the signatures of Jagan Nath with his admitted signatures on this document and found the same to be of Jagan Nath. He had further stated that it is not the case of the petitioners that this is a sham document and in the absence of such a pleading drew adverse inference against the petitioners.
10. So far as comparison of the signature between admitted and disputed signatures is concerned, there is no dispute that the Court always is competent to compare the admitted and disputed signatures and come to a conclusion. But the Supreme Court in the case of State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 14, held as under :-
" The matter can be viewed from another angle, also. Although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a person accused of an offence, solely on comparison made by himself. It is, therefore, not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other : and the prudent course is to obtain in the opinion and assistance of an expert."
11. Thus, the Supreme Court advised that ordinarily the Court should avoid comparing the admitted signatures with the disputed signatures. But herein once it has been so done and it has been approved by the learned Appellate Authority, at this stage this Court will not interfere. It must follow that Exhibit AW4/1 was signed by petitioner No. 1.
12. In that event, it was urged that it was just a document to create evidence, if need arises. But, in fact, the petitioners only were the tenants in the suit property.
13. The principle of law is well settled. It can be stated in few words to be that where a smoke screen is set up, the Court is duty bound to go into it and see the transaction. It would lift the veil and see the real face of the said transaction.
14. What is the position herein? The respondent landlords had never relied upon this document nor filed it with the petition for eviction. It was filed late during the trial. When this fact had not been pleaded that such a document exist, in that event, the tenants certainly could not take a plea that it was a sham document which was not to be acted upon. It would be unfortunate and improper to blame the petitioners for not having taken such a plea. It is always for the person who approaches the Court to put up a plea and plead the facts. Thereupon the other side can rebut or take up any other additional plea. When, as mentioned above, the landlord himself had not set up such a plea, the learned Rent Controller was patently in error in blaming the petitioners in this regard.
15. The facts on the record reveal that the petitioners have been in possession for long. In the entries of the property assessment tax from the year 1966 onward, Jagan Nath is shown to be in occupation of the suit premises. This clearly shows that the petitioners have been in possession for long. Ordinarily, the landlord will not wait for such a long time, particularly when a third person is in occupation. There is no further material on the record that from the year 1966 onwards the alleged tenant i.e. Hans Raj had been working or carrying on business in the suit property. It only strengthen the contention that it was a paper transaction that Exhibit AW4/1 was executed. It was not to be acted upon, consequently, the findings of the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. These findings clearly show that the findings arrived at by the authorities under Act were erroneous. It is a legal infirmity. Thus this Court must interfere.
16. For these reasons, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Instead, petition for eviction is dismissed.