Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhagat Matu Ram (Died) vs Basati Ram Bhola on 5 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2006)142PLR18
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The landlord is in revision aggrieved against the orders passed by the authorities under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") whereby the ejectment sought on the ground of non-payment of rent, change of user, sub-letting and impairing the value and utility of the demised premises and for the reason that the tenant ceased to occupy the premises for a period of more than four months, was dismissed. The only ground which survives in the present revision petition is sub-letting the ground on which alone the arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court.
2. The landlord has alleged that the premises in dispute has been sublet by the respondent to krishan Lal and Kasturi Lal. In the replication, it has been pleaded by the landlord that Krishan Lal is brother and Kasturi Lal is nephew of the respondent-tenant. It is in this context, the allegation of sub-letting by the respondent is required to be examined in the present revision petition.
3. To prove sub-letting, the petitioner has relied upon the extract of the house tax assessment register Exhibit P-3 to P-9 maintained by the Municipal Committee where the occupant of the shop is shown as Krishan Lal, then Ashoka Watch Company and thereafter Ashok Kumar for the period 1963-64 to 1973-74. Reliance has also been placed upon the statement of Basti Ram, Exhibit A-15, made in petition between the parties for fixation of fair rent wherein he has stated that he was running the Watch and Radio repair shop in partnership with his son and his brother as well as on the fact that Krishan Lal has got electricity connection for the demised premises alleging himself to be the proprietor of the Ashoka Radio and Watch Co. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Exhibit A-3 whereby Basti Ram has purchased another shop from Radha Krishan.
4. Both the Authorities below have discussed the entire evidence to return a finding that the landlord has failed to prove parting of exclusive possession of the whole premises or a portion thereof for valuable consideration by Basti Ram in favour of Krishan Lal or Kasturi Lal and consequently dismissed the eviction petition.
5. The learned Appellate Authority has rightly found that in Exhibit P-4, certified copy of the extract from house tax assessment register for the year 1964-65 to 1965-66, the name of the occupier is shown as Ashoka Watches. The same entry appears for the year 1969-70 which is apparent from Exhibit P-5. The name of Ashok Kumar appears in Exhibits P-6, P-7 and P-8, certified copies of house tax assessment register for the years 1970-71 to 1973-74. It is, thus, apparent that the business was being run under the name and style of Ashoka Watch Co. In some of the house tax assessments, instead of Ashoka Watches, the name of Ashok Kumar is mentioned as the occupant. It is not the case of the landlord that Ashok Kumar is any person or was a tenant in the premises at any point of time. It is also well settled that entries in the house tax assessment register are the entries made by the Municipal authorities' on the basis of information gathered by them for the purpose of maintaining register for collection of house tax and by itself it cannot determine the jural relationship between the parties. Nothing can be said to be proved on the basis of entries in the house tax assessment register produced by the petitioner.
6. Reliance on Exhibit A-15, statement made by Basti Ram in the previous petition for fixation of fair rent, only goes to show that his brother and son were partners with him in Watch and Radio repair shop. Such partnership is not proved. Even if said statement is taken to be true, it does not prove parting of exclusive possession by Basti Ram in favour of his nephew and brother which may lead to some credence to allegation of subletting. Similarly, even if Krishan Lal has sought electricity connection for the premises describing him to be the proprietor of Ashoka Watch Company, it is not an evidence of the fact that Basti Ram has parted with exclusion possession of the demised premises. Such electricity connection could be sought for various reasons. There is nothing on the record to show that such electricity connection was sought by Krishna Lal alleging himself to be in exclusive possession of the demised premises.
7. The argument that Basti Ram has purchased another shop is again not relevant to prove that Basti Ram has parted with exclusive possession of the shop in dispute in favour of his brother. It is landlord's own case that sub-tenant had left the shop in the year 1973 and the present ejectment petition was filed on 11.3.1982. Sub-letting is alleged to brother and nephew of the respondent-tenant. In the absence of any evidence of parting of exclusive possession of the demised premises for valuable consideration, the allegation of sub-letting is not proved.
8. Both the Authorities have appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence to return a concurrent finding of fact that the landlord has failed to prove parting of exclusive possession of the premises in favour of Krishan Lal-brother of the tenant. The said finding cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(6) of the Act.
Dismissed.