Piara Lal Vs. Nasib Chand and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - (as his lordship then was). 3. norata ram filed ejectment petition under section 13 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act (for short the act) against' his tenant piare lal (petitioner herein) as well as against charan dass son of piare lal alleging therein that the tenant has sublet the shop in dispute to one sham lal in the year 1971-72 without his written consent and it remained in exclusive possession of sham lal upto the year 1974-75. it was also alleged in the petition that the tenant further sublet the shop during the year 1975-76 to sham lal and charan dass and after the year 1975-76 the shop remained in possession of charan dass who is carrying on the business to the exclusion of the petitioner. 4. the petition was contested by the tenant as well as by the sub-tenant. r-l, partnership deed, between the tenant and his son charan dass clearly proves that tenant has not parted with the possession. from this evidence, it is clearly established that the petitioner remained in possession of the shop in dispute with effect from the year 1972 onwards. learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring to my notice any other evidence on record to show that the petitioner ever remained in possession of the shop when the liquor license was given to sham lam and there- after to charan dass. i also find no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord has failed to prove that sham lal was in exclusive possession of the shop in dispute.v.k. jhanji, j.1. this is tenant's revision against the orders of the authorities below ordering his ejectment on the ground of subletting.2. nasib chand son of norata ram was the owner/landlord of the premises in dispute. nasib chand died during the pendency of the civil revision and in his place, jagdish chand son of norata ram was substituted as respondent no. 1 being his legal representative, vide order dated 14-12-1983 passed by b. s. yadav, j; (as his lordship then was).3. norata ram filed ejectment petition under section 13 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act (for short the act) against' his tenant piare lal (petitioner herein) as well as against charan dass son of piare lal alleging therein that the tenant has sublet the shop in dispute to one sham lal in the year 1971-72 without his written consent and it remained in exclusive possession of sham lal upto the year 1974-75. it was also alleged in the petition that the tenant further sublet the shop during the year 1975-76 to sham lal and charan dass and after the year 1975-76 the shop remained in possession of charan dass who is carrying on the business to the exclusion of the petitioner.4. the petition was contested by the tenant as well as by the sub-tenant. tenant, in his written statement, denied that he ever sublet the shop to sham lal. he, in fact, took up a plea that he never sublet the shop to sham lal but remained in possession of the shop as a partner with charan dass.5. rent controller, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, found that the shop remained in exclusive possession of sham lal during the period 1971-72 to 1974-75 and thereafter it remained in possession of sham lal and charan dass in the year 1975-76. in view of this finding, order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. tenant preferred appeal before the appellate authority. during the pendency of the appeal, tenant made an application that he be allowed to produce additional evidence so as to prove that there was a partnership between him and sham lal. the prayer was declined as the appellate authority was of the view that the additional evidence sought to be produced by the tenant is not in conformity with the plea of the tenant in the written statement. the appellate authority affirmed the order of the rent controller and dismissed the appeal of the tenant. tenant has impugned the orders of the authorities below in this civil revision.6 shri h. l. sarin, senior advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appellate authority ought to have allowed the tenant to bring on record the additional evidence so as to prove that there was a partnership between the tenant and sham lal. he further submitted that ex. r-l, partnership deed, between the tenant and his son charan dass clearly proves that tenant has not parted with the possession.7. on the other hand, ms. sheela didi, advocate, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the tenant sublet the shop firstly to sham lai and thereafter to sham lal and charan dass and, therefore, the landlord is entitled to an order of ejectment.8. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, i find no merit in this civil revision. i find from the record that the petitioner was earlier carrying on the business as a wine contractor in the shop in dispute when he was black-listed. thereafter, sham lal came into possession of the shop. madan gopal (a.w. 1), clerk, deputy excise and taxation officer, patiala, has proved on record that the liquor licence for the year 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 was given to one sham lal, who was carrying on business in the shop in dispute. in the year 1975-76 the liquor licence was given to sham lal and charan dass who remained in possession of the shop during that period. from this evidence, it is clearly established that the petitioner remained in possession of the shop in dispute with effect from the year 1972 onwards. the appellate authority rightly declined to admit the addtional evidence. it was never the case of the petitioner that sham lal was his partner. it was only during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority that an effort was made to take up this plea. ex. r-1, partnership deed, also does not indicate that there was any genuine partnership between the petitioner and charan dass. as already noticed, liquor license for the year 1975-76 was given to sham lal and charan dass who carried on their business in the shop in dispute. during the currency of the license, there is no partnership between the petitioner, sham lal and charan dass. learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring to my notice any other evidence on record to show that the petitioner ever remained in possession of the shop when the liquor license was given to sham lam and there- after to charan dass. i also find no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord has failed to prove that sham lal was in exclusive possession of the shop in dispute. landlord in his statement has categorically stated that liquor license for the year 1972-73 to 1974-75 was given to sham lal who was carrying on business and thereafter in the year 1975-76 it was given to sham lal and charan dass who came into possession of the shop jointly during that period. tenant, in his statement has admitted that liquor license for the years 1972-73 to 1974-75 was given to sham lal and for the year 1975-76 to sham lal and charan dass. once the landlord has successfully established that the tenant is not in possession of the premises, then the onus shifts on the tenant to prove that in what capacity the other person is in possession of the premises. in this case, tenant denied in his written statement that he ever sublet the shop in dispute to sham lal but before the appellate authority, he tried to fill in the lacuna by saying that sham lal was in possession as his . partner. the plea of partnership was never raised in the written statement and, therefore, he was not allowed to take up this plea for the first time in appeal. the petitioner is also not entitled to raise the same very plea in the civil revision when no- such foundation was laid in the written statement and, therefore, i find that the authorities below rightly found that the petitioner is liable to be ejected from the premises is dispute on the ground of subletting.9. consequently, this civil revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. however, tenant is allowed two months' time to vacate the premises provided he deposits the entire arrears of rent upto date including that of two months with the rent controller within one month from today and also files an undertaking within the said period to the effect that he shall hand over the vacant possession to the landlord after the expiry of the period of two months.