Judgment:
Civil Revision No.3775 of 2013 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 240 Civil Revision No.3775 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.1.2014 Bhagwant Singh ......petitioner Versus Jagdish Dass Mahant Chela Mahant Nirmal Dass Dera Baba Luturia and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Arnav Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner.
**** SABINA, J.
Respondent No.1 had filed the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the petitioner and respondent No.2 on the ground of subletting and nuisance.
Learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 7.5.2012, ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of subletting and nuisance.
The Appellate Authority vide order dated 21.3.2013 upheld the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of subletting but reversed the finding qua nuisance, given by the Rent Controller against the petitioner.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted Devi Anita that, in fact, respondent No.2 was merely a servant of the petitioner.
2014.01.27 15:35 I am approving this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.3775 of 2013 (O&M) 2 Possession of the demised premises was still with the petitioner.
Case of respondent No.1 was that the premises in question had been given on rent to the petitioner at a monthly rent of ` 200/-.
However, now the tenanted premises had been sublet by the petitioner to respondent No.2.
The relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was admitted by the petitioner in his written statement but the factum of subletting was denied.
The Appellate Authority, while upholding the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of subletting, has noticed that respondent No.2, while appearing in the witness box, had feigned ignorance qua the photographs shown to him.
Respondent No.2 had admitted that the petitioner had placed weight lifting material in the demised premises.
He also admitted that some persons used to come to do exercise in the demised premises but had failed to give the names of the said persons.
Respondent No.2 denied the factum of registration of FIR under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) against the petitioner at Police Station Kotwali Patiala.
He also feigned ignorance to the effect that as to whether the petitioner had been discharged in the proceedings initiated against him under Section 182 IPC.
Statement of respondent No.2 was recorded in FIR No.363 dated 17.8.2006 under Sections 451, 427, 323, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali Patiala.
The said statement was duly proved on record, wherein, respondent No.2 had stated that he was running 'Mangal Da Akhara' in the property in Devi Anita dispute.
Bhupinder Singh, in a suit filed by him against Jagdish Dass 2014.01.27 15:35 I am approving this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.3775 of 2013 (O&M) 3 for permanent injunction, had admitted in his cross-examination that buffaloes belonging to Mangal Ram had been tethered in the rented portion taken by Bhagwant Singh.
He also admitted that public used the said premises for wrestling purpose.
So far as the petitioner is concerned, he had failed to prove on record any document qua sale of milk by him with regard to dairy farm run by him in the demised premises.
Petitioner had also failed to examine any person from the neighbourhood to support his plea that he was running the dairy farm in the demised premises, whereas, on the other hand, the landlord had proved on record invitations issued by various weight lifting associations to Mangal Health Club, which was addressed to Mangal Ram.
In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the premises in question had, in fact, been sublet by the petitioner to respondent No.2.
Petitioner had failed to establish that he had sublet the premises in question with the consent of respondent No.1-landlord.
Hence, ejectment of the petitioner, ordered by the courts below, is liable to be upheld.
No ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE January 22, 2014 anita Devi Anita 2014.01.27 15:35 I am approving this document Chandigarh