Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Sarup And Ors. vs Sh. Sita Ram And Ors. on 30 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)134PLR71
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. This petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the Act') is directed against orders dated 15.12.1980 and 15.3.1982 passed by Rent Controller, Ludhiana and Appellate Authority, Ludhiana respectively.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Sita Ram (deceased) (hereinafter described as 'the non-petitioner No. 1) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of Ram Sarup (deceased) (hereinafter described as 'the petitioner') and three others from a portion of the property bearing No. B-VIII 741, situated at Lakar Bazar, Ludhiana. Non-petitioner No. 1 alleged that he was owner of the property, the demised portion of which was leased out to the petitioner in year 1950 at a monthly rent of Rs. 16/- for residential purposes, but the latter had not paid the rent since 1.4.1979; had changed the user of the premises and sub-let one room and verandaha to non-petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 without his consent who, in turn, converted the verandaha into a room and thereby materially impaired the value an utility of the premises.
3. In his written statement, the petitioner denied the allegation of change of user and sub-letting of a portion of the demised premises. He averred that respondents No. 2 to 4 were his employees and not sub-tenants. He further averred that no addition or alteration had been made in the demised premises so as to impair its value or utility.
4. In their separate written statement, respondent No. 2 to 4 pleaded that they were workers of the petitioner and not sub-tenants and that they were not paying any rent to him.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, Rent Controller, Ludhiana framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the tender is valid? OPR
2. Whether respondent No.l had sub-let one room with one verandah to respondents No. 2 to 4 without written consent of petitioner? OPA
3. Whether the respondent No.l has converted the user of the premises from residential to commercial without the consent of the petitioner, if so its effect? OPA
4. Whether the respondents have materially impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute by making material alterations as alleged? If so, its effect? OPA
5. Whether the petition is bad for misjcinder and non-joinder of parities? OPR 2.4
6. Whether the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are mere workers of respondent No. l? OPR
7. Relief."
6. After examining the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the Rent Controller decided issue No.2 against the petitioner and held that he had sub-let a portion of the demised premises to non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. In doing so, he relied on the following factors;
(i) On 17.12.1979, non-petitioner No.2 had made a statement in the Court that he was in possession of a portion of the premises as a tenant and tendered rent for the period from 1.4.1979 to 31.12.1979 alongwith house tax, interest and costs.
(ii) Non-petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were represented through an independent counsel, (iii) The evidence produced by the parties showed that non-petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were engaged in the manufacturing and sale of shoes.
(iv) Ram Sarup had not produced accounts to show that non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were being paid salary.
7. The Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of sub-letting by recording the following observations;
"The main contest between the parties relates to the ground of sub-letting, which has been decided against the appellants. Although the appellants pleaded that appellants 2 to 4 are the worker and employees of appellant No. l, the same has not been proved. The occupation of appellants No. 2 to 4 is admitted by the pleadings. The controversy, therefore, remains regarding the status of the appellants No. 2 to 4 i.e. whether they are sub-tenants or employees of appellants No. l. Interestingly during the proceedings of the case in spite of the pleadings to the contrary, on 17/8.12.1979 respondent No. 2 seems to have made statement in court that he is a tenant in the premises in dispute and tendered the rent but the same was refused by the respondent and his counsel. Appellant No.l, however, made the tender on the same day which was accepted. This circumstances clearly knocks the bottom out of the contention of the appellants that appellants 2 to 4 are the employees of appellant No. l. If they had been employees, there was no occasion for appellant No. 2 to claim his status as a tenant or to tender arrears of rent. There is nothing on the record to wipe out this admission on the part of appellant No. 2.
Even otherwise the appellants have failed to prove their relationship of employer and employees inter-se. It is the case of appellant No. l that he deals in shoe making and not in shoes. At the same time appellants 2 to 4 are alleged to be shoe makers. This goes to show that the trade of the two sets of appellants is totally different. As admitted by Dharam Singh, RW2 appellants 2 to 4 manufacture the shoes. If that is not the trade of respondent No. l, we fail to understand how they are his employees. He has failed to produce any accounts to show that the other appellants have been employed by him. As employees they must have been paid their salaries, which must find a mention in the books of accounts. This raises a presumption against the appellants.
The evidence of the respondent consisting of his own statement and that of Gurparshad, A.W. 3 and Baldev Raj A.W. 5 clearly goes to show that the respondents 2 to 4 are in exclusive possession of the part of the premises and their evidence has not been shaken. Rather, it finds support from the statement of Dharam Singh R.W. 2 that appellants 2 to 4 are engaged in a separate trade of manufacturing of shoes,"
8. Sh. R.K. Battas, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the petitioner argued that the finding recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on the issue of subletting of a portion of the demised premises is based on misreading of evidence and, therefore, the same may be reversed and the impugned orders may be set aside. He submitted that Sita Ram had connived with non-petitioner Nos.2 to 4 to create evidence against the petitioner, else there was no occasion for them to engage an independent counsel and tender rent for the period from 1.4.1979 to 31.12.1979. Sh. Battas pointed out that Ram Sarup was using one portion of the demised premises for storage of leather out of which respondents No. 2 to 4, who were employed by him, used to manufacture shoes in the second portion and, therefore, they could not be treated as tenants. In the end, learned counsel submitted that the ground of sub-letting should be treated to have become redundant because Sita Ram had taken possession of that portion where respondent No. 2 to 4 used to manufacture shoes and constructed new building by demolishing the old structure.
9. Sh. Prabodh Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of Sita Ram, supported the impugned orders and argued that the concurrent finding recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on the issue of sub-letting does not call for interference under Section 15(5) of the Act because it is based on a proper appreciation of evidence produced by the parties. He pointed out that the petitioner had not produced any evidence to substantiate his plea that non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were his tenants and the Rent Controller did not commit any error by rejecting the same. Sh. Mittal then argued that the developments, which have taken place during the pendency of the revision petition, cannot justify interference by this Court with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.
10. I have given serious thought to the respective arguments and have gone through the record including the English translation of the statements of witnesses who had appeared before the Rent Controller. In my opinion, the finding of sub-letting of a portion of the demised premises recorded by the Rent Controller, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, does not suffer from any legal error requiring interference by this Court. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had objectively appreciated the evidence produced by the parties and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had sub-let a portion of the demised premises. Therefore, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned orders. In his written statement, Ram Sarup did plead that non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were his employees, but he could not produce any evidence to substantiate the same. Rather, the statement of Sh. Netar Singh, Labour Inspector, shows that he, i.e., Ram Sarup had not disclosed the names of non-petitioner Nos.2 to 4 as his employees in the application filed for registration under the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. As against this, Sita Ram succeeded in proving that Ram Sarup had leased out a portion of the premises to respondents No. 2 to 4 for manufacturing of shoes. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the premises were leased out by late Shri Sita Ram to late Sh. Ram Sarup for residential purposes, but the latter used it for commercial purposes.
11. I am further of the view that the changes allegedly made by Sita Ram in the demised premises during the pendency of the revision petition cannot be made basis for setting aside the impugned orders.
12. For the reasons mentioned above, the revision petition is dismissed. However, three months time is given to the legal representatives of Ram Sarup to vacate the disputed premises subject to the condition of their furnishing an undertaking before the Rent Controller, Ludhiana within 15 days from today to hand over vacant possession of the portion in their possession to the legal representatives of Sita Ram and to pay an amount equivalent to monthly rent as damages for use and occupation of the premises for next 3 months.