Full Judgment
M.M. Aggarwal, J.
1. This is petition filed by Hari Chand against judgment dated 26.9.1984 of Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur whereby appeal filed by him against the order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur on 9.4.1983 was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that Kaushalya Devi had filed ejectment petition against Ramesh Chander as tenant on the allegations that Ramesh Chander inducted a tenant in 1974 in the shop detailed in the heading of the petition. He was in arrears of rent and that he had sublet the premises to respondent No. 2 without written consent of the landlord. In this case, Hart Chand had taken the plea that he was not sub-tenant but was a tenant of the Wakf Board. However, both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority held Hari Chand to be sub-tenant and had directed the ejectment.
3. On behalf of the petitioner, it had been argued that Ramesh Chander was colluding with Kaushalya Devi and admission, if any made by Ramesh Chander was not relevant. In fact, Hari Chand was direct tenant under the Wakf Board and in a dispute between Raghbir Singh and Wakf Board, Raghbir Singh was held to be owner and he had filed ejectment petition as against Sansar Chand, husband of Kaushalya Devi.
4. From the perusal of the record, it would come out that Hari Chand did not appear in the witness box. His wife Bimla Devi had appeared as RW5. She had stated that Wakf Board was owner of the property and property was taken on rent from the Wakf Board. She had denied that Ramesh Chander was either tenant or she had ever paid any rent to Ramesh Chander. However, in the cross-examination, she had stated that her husband i.e. Hari Chand was paying rent to Kaushalya Devi before the shop was taken on rent from the Wakf Board. She had stated that Hari Chand did not execute any rent note in favour of Sansar Chand.
5. Ramesh Chander while appearing as Rwl had stated that he had taken the shop on rent from Kaushalya Devi and remained in possession for two years and that he let out the shop to Hari Chand and then a rent note was executed by Hari Chand in his favour. He had stated about rent note A2, which was executed by Hari Chand in his favour. Ramesh Chander had also stated that he had been paying rent to the landlord petitioner after the receipt of same from the Hari Chand respondent.
6. Rent note A2 had been proved further by Avtar Chand, Deed Writer. This is by Hari Chand in favour of Ramesh Chander. It is dated 23.10.1976. According to Avtar Chand, it was duly entered in his register also and it was a rent note signed by Hari Chand.
7. From the perusal of this rent note it would come qut that this rent note was in respect of the shop in dispute, which was taken on rent by Ramesh Chander from Kaushalya Devi and then Hari Chand had taken the same on rent from Ramesh Chander and had taken possession. Hari Chand did not appear in the witness box to deny or challenge this rent note.
8. The contention of counsel for Hari Chand is that the property was that of Wakf Board and Hari Chand had taken the same form Wakf Board or there was dispute between Raghbir Singh and Wakf Board, cannot be taken into consideration for the disposal of this petition, which has arisen out of the proceedings initiated by Kaushalya Devi for ejectment on the ground of subletting. In this case, relationship of tenant and landlord was to be decided. Ramesh Chander had admitted the fact having taken the. property on rent from Kaushalya Devi. In the rent note A2 executed by Hari Chand in favour of Ramesh Chander, all the facts had been narrated. Hari Chand did not appear in the witness box to deny this Fact. There may be collusion in between Ramesh Chander and Hari Chand but it cannot be said that Ramesh Chander and Kaushalya Devi are colluding.
9. There are concurrent findings of two Courts below. I do not find any merit in the petition filed by Hari Chad.
10. Dismissed.