Punjab-Haryana High Court
Basant Kaur And Ors. vs Shanti Devi And Ors. on 4 September, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1991)99PLR115
JUDGMENT S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The challenge in revision here is to the order of eviction passed against the petitioners on the ground of sub letting and that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
2. The demised premises are a shop situated in Moga. It was originally owned by Walaiti Ram, who had let it out to Prem Singh. Both Walaiti Ram and Prem Singh have since died and it is their legal representatives who are new arrayed here as parties.
3. As regards sub-letting, the evidence on record shows that Basant Kaur, the widow of the tenant Prem Singh and their two sons reside outside Moga. R. W. 5 Sant Singh, the brorder of the tenant- Prem Singh deposed in this behalf that both the sons of Prem Singh are in service away from Moga and Prem Singh's house in Moga has been sold. Farther that whenever Basant Kaur visits Moga, she lives in his house. In other words, neither of the heirs of the tenant-Prem Singh resides in Moga. What is more, there is over-whelming evidence on record to show that possession of the demised shop is exclusively that of respondents-Han Dev, Rakesh Kumar and Kamal Kant.
4. The case set up by the petitioners is that Basant Kaur entered into a partnership with Hari Dev and other respondents and she is thus in possession of the shop. Exhibit R/4 is said to be a partnership deed entered into in this behalf. R. W 7-Basant Kaur proved her signatures on this partnership deed while R. W. 4-Prem Pal Kansel, an Income Tax Practitioner deposed that it was he who got the partnership deed exhibit R/4 executed. There is then the assessment order exhibit R/5 produced by Mohan Lal Raju, an Assistant from the office of the Income-Tax Officer, Moga, pertaining to this firm. This part of the evidence provides the foundation of the petitioner's defence to the ground of sub letting alleged against them
5. The significant circumstance to note with regard to the partnership set up by the petitioner is that no material has been brought on record to show how much was invested in the firm by the petitioner Basant Kaur and when and what is the amount, if any, that she received from the firm in respect of her share. When asked, all that she stated in the witness box in this behalf was that she had invested Rs. 20,000/- to 25,000/-, Surely, it is to be expected that she would have named a definite sum. There is also no material to show from where she had got this money to invest in this partnership 6 Further, it will be seen that the share of Basant Kaur in the firm was only a nominal one and what is mere, in terms to clause (9) of the Partnership deed, Basant was clearly not entitled to take any part in the running of the partnership Such being the circumstances. no exception can indeed be takers to the finding of the appellate authority that the partnership deed exhibit R/4 was not a genuine document and further that exclusive possession being that of respondents-Hari Dev and others amply justifies ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of sub letting
7. On the other ground too, namely; that the dismissed premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, no interference is warranted. The evidence on record shows that the demised premises are a building over 75 yeas' old and a part of the roof thereof has already fallen. This building is made of kacha dry bricks with mud plaster and no wonder, therefore, that with passage of time, its condition has so deteriorated that it now in tie unsafe state that it Las been shown to be.
8. In dealing with this matter, it would be petitioner to note that the petitioners had filed an application under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for permission to effect repairs. This was allowed by the rent controller, but this order was set aside in appeal. The revision petition filed against the appellate order was also dismissed. Another application under Section 12 of the Act had been filed, but that was later withdrawn. The filing of these applications corroborated the fact that the building was in need of repairs.
9. It was sought to be argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the roof bad fallen on account of the ma acious act of the landlord. It will be seen that no such plea had been put forth by the petitioners. All that had been said in the return was that the roof had been damaged on account of the bath room above Even if it be taken to be so, it cannot detract from the finding that the building had in fast become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The building being in this state clearly provides another ground to the respondents for an order of ejectment against the petitioners.
10. The impugned order of the appellate authority thus warrants no interference in revision. It is accordingly hereby upheld and affirmed and this petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 300/-.