Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Deepak Kumar Vs. Hem Raj and ors.
Decided On : Oct-12-1999
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Deepak Kumar Vs. Hem Raj and ors. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 4', (int) 1 => 'the Indian Partnership Act', (int) 2 => 'Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'V.S. Aggarwal', (int) 1 => 'Deepak Kumar', (int) 2 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 3 => 'the Impugned Judgment', (int) 4 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 5 => 'Rent Controller', (int) 6 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 7 => 'Rent Controller', (int) 8 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 9 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 10 => 'Rent Controller', (int) 11 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 12 => 'Durga', (int) 13 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 14 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 15 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 16 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 17 => 'Rent Controller', (int) 18 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 19 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'Supreme Court', (int) 22 => 'Haryana Rent', (int) 23 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 24 => 'Court', (int) 25 => 'Court', (int) 26 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'Appellate Authority' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Barnala', (int) 1 => 'Barnala', (int) 2 => 'Barnala', (int) 3 => 'subletting.15' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '4.9.1997', (int) 1 => '2.2.1994', (int) 2 => '1.2.1989', (int) 3 => 'one', (int) 4 => '50:50', (int) 5 => '27.01.1990', (int) 6 => '6.', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => '50:50', (int) 9 => 'half', (int) 10 => 'half', (int) 11 => '115', (int) 12 => '150', (int) 13 => '4', (int) 14 => '5', (int) 15 => '16' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Hem Raj', (int) 1 => 'Dass', (int) 2 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 3 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 4 => 'Hem Raj', (int) 5 => 'Hem Raj', (int) 6 => 'Hem Raj', (int) 7 => 'Basant Kaur', (int) 8 => 'Shanti Devi', (int) 9 => 'Dass' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'third', (int) 2 => 'third', (int) 3 => 'third', (int) 4 => 'third' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'evening' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1932', (int) 1 => 'subletting.11', (int) 2 => 'daily', (int) 3 => '1998', (int) 4 => 'three months' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Durga Dass Chauhan Dry-Cleaner' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '627514', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/136649/east-punjab-urban-rent-restriction-act-1949-complete-act">East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949</a> - Sections 13(2) and 15(5)', 'appealno' => 'Civil Revision No. 194 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Deepak Kumar', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Deepak Kumar Vs. Hem Raj and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - It is well known that under Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, partnership is a relation between the persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sub-lease .14. As already pointed out above, the respondent-tenant has failed to establish the factum of partnership between him and Durga Dass.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Bharat Sales Limited v. Life Insurance Corporation of India;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Amarjit Markan, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' H.S. Kathuria, Adv.', 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-10-12', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' V.S. Aggarwal, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">V.S. Aggarwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present revision petition has been filed by Deepak Kumar, hereinafter described as 'the petitioner' directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Barnala, dated 4.9.1997. By virtue of the Impugned Judgment, the learned Appellate Authority, Barnala, had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Barnala, dated 2.2.1994 and instead dismissed the petition for eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts alleged are that Hem Raj is stated to be the tenant in the suit premises. A petition for eviction has been filed against him asserting that arrears of rent have not been paid from 1.2.1989 and that the tenant has sublet the suit premises to Durga Dass who is running the business of dry-cleaning without the consent of the petitioner-landlord in writing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition for eviction had been contested. It was alleged that rent has already been paid uptil 30.3.1990 and further the Durga Dass is doing the work of dry-cleaning in one portion of the shop. They divide their earnings on 50:50 basis daily The entire shop remains in the possession of the respondent-tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The findings turned were that entire arrears of rent had not been tendered on the first date of hearing and further that the property in question has been sublet by the tenant to Durga Dass. Accordingly, an order of eviction was passed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-tenant preferred an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority upset the findings of the learned Rent Controller on both the counts. It was held that rent had been paid uptil 30.3.1990 and that there was no arrears when the petition was filed on 27.01.1990. It was further concluded that the property has not been sublet to Durga Dass. Accordingly, the petition for eviction was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner had only pressed the ground that the property in question has been sublet by the respondent-tenant to one Durga Dass.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As already pointed out above and rementioned at the risk of repetition, while the petitioner claimed that a third person Durga Dass had been inducted in the suit property, the plea of the respondent-tenant was that Durga Dass is carrying on the work with him and they share their profits in the evening on 50:50 basis. Durga Dass even was examined as a witness who appeared as RW2. He stated that he is carrying on the business of dry-cleaning in partnership with tenant Hem Raj. In the evening, they share their earnings half and half. According to him, Hem Raj opens and closes the shop. In almost identical terms is the statement of Hem Raj RW5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It is abundantly clear from the above said fact that the defence offered by the respondent was in terms that, in fact, there was a partnership among Durga Dass and the respondent-tenant. It is well known that under Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, partnership is a relation between the persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. It is commonly being stated that it is an association of persons and a compendious way of describing the said association.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Once a defence has been taken that a third person in occupation is a partner then the onus to show satisfactorily that such a business in partnership is being carried with the third person. The proposition as such was not being disputed and if there is a genuine partnership arrived at by the tenant who retain the legal control of the premises then it will not be a case of subletting.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Reverting back to the facts of the case, one can conveniently refer to the admitted fact that a Local Commissioner had been appointed to visit the spot. He reported that Durga Dass was doing business of dry-cleaning. The presence of the third person in this regard is, therefore, not denied. In fact, the, written statement also admits the said fact. It is admitted by Durga Dass, as noted by the learned Rent Controller, that on the cash memo it is printed Durga Dass Chauhan Dry-Cleaner. Furthermore, there is nothing on the record as to what are the terms of the partnership. It has been stated that on daily basis they distribute the income 50:50 each. In the peculiar facts, the said contention is difficult to believe. The reasons are not far to fetch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is in evidence that there are separate shutters to the premises. There are no income tax returns produced by the respondent-tenant so as to indicate that income from the said business of dry-cleaning has also been shown, Mere ipsi dixit of the plea that they are doing business in partnership, therefore, cannot be believed. The learned Appellate Authority, therefore, misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that the legal possession has not been parted with. It has already been pointed out above that it is for the respondent-tenant to show that he is carrying on business in partnership with Durga Dass. The existence of partnership looks a far of dream. It is not proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Basant Kaur and Ors. v. Shanti Devi and Ors., (1991-1)99 P.L.R. 115. In the cited case, there were persons others than the tenant doing the business. It was asserted that they were partners with the tenant. There was nothing to indicate as to what was invested by the tenant in the partnership. The tenant was not entitled to take part in the business. The conclusion was that the partnership deed was not genuine. In the present case, no such partnership deed has been forthcoming. Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sales Limited v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1998 Haryana Rent Reporter 150, had also considered the same question. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, it was held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Sub-tenancy or sub-letting comes into existence when the tenant gives up possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual agreement or understanding between the tenant and the person to whom the possession is so delivered. In this process, the landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted behind the back of the landlord, concealing the overt acts and transferring possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter stranger to the landlord. In the sense that the landlord had not let out the premises to that person nor had he allowed or consented to his entering into possession over the demised property. It is the actual, physical and exclusive possession of that person, instead of the tenant, which ultimately reveals to the landlord that the tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person into possession of that property. In such a situation, it would be difficult for the landlord to prove by direct evidence, the contract, or agreement of understanding between the tenant and the sub-tenant. It would also be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property had been sublet had paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sub-lease ...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As already pointed out above, the respondent-tenant has failed to establish the factum of partnership between him and Durga Dass. Durga Dass is functioning from the property and cash memos are printed in his own name as dry-cleaner. Since the landlord is a stranger to any agreement between the tenant and the sub-tenant, the Court would be justified in drawing inference of subletting.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is true that this Court ordinarily will not interfere in a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority. But when the finding as such is based on misreading of evidence, then it is legal impropriety and, therefore, under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, this Court deems it necessary to interfere. 16. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Authority is set aside. Instead, an order of eviction is passed against the respondent-tenant. The respondent is granted three months time to vacate the premises.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(2000)124PLR827', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Hem Raj and ors.', 'sub' => 'Tenancy', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '627514' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Deepak Kumar Vs. Hem Raj and ors. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 4', (int) 1 => 'the Indian Partnership Act', (int) 2 => 'Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'V.S. Aggarwal', (int) 1 => 'Deepak Kumar', (int) 2 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 3 => 'the Impugned Judgment', (int) 4 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 5 => 'Rent Controller', (int) 6 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 7 => 'Rent Controller', (int) 8 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 9 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 10 => 'Rent Controller', (int) 11 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 12 => 'Durga', (int) 13 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 14 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 15 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 16 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 17 => 'Rent Controller', (int) 18 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 19 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'Supreme Court', (int) 22 => 'Haryana Rent', (int) 23 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 24 => 'Court', (int) 25 => 'Court', (int) 26 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'Appellate Authority' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Barnala', (int) 1 => 'Barnala', (int) 2 => 'Barnala', (int) 3 => 'subletting.15' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '4.9.1997', (int) 1 => '2.2.1994', (int) 2 => '1.2.1989', (int) 3 => 'one', (int) 4 => '50:50', (int) 5 => '27.01.1990', (int) 6 => '6.', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => '50:50', (int) 9 => 'half', (int) 10 => 'half', (int) 11 => '115', (int) 12 => '150', (int) 13 => '4', (int) 14 => '5', (int) 15 => '16' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Hem Raj', (int) 1 => 'Dass', (int) 2 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 3 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 4 => 'Hem Raj', (int) 5 => 'Hem Raj', (int) 6 => 'Hem Raj', (int) 7 => 'Basant Kaur', (int) 8 => 'Shanti Devi', (int) 9 => 'Dass' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'third', (int) 2 => 'third', (int) 3 => 'third', (int) 4 => 'third' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'evening' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1932', (int) 1 => 'subletting.11', (int) 2 => 'daily', (int) 3 => '1998', (int) 4 => 'three months' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Durga Dass Chauhan Dry-Cleaner' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '627514', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/136649/east-punjab-urban-rent-restriction-act-1949-complete-act">East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949</a> - Sections 13(2) and 15(5)', 'appealno' => 'Civil Revision No. 194 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Deepak Kumar', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Deepak Kumar Vs. Hem Raj and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - It is well known that under Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, partnership is a relation between the persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sub-lease .14. As already pointed out above, the respondent-tenant has failed to establish the factum of partnership between him and Durga Dass.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Bharat Sales Limited v. Life Insurance Corporation of India;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Amarjit Markan, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' H.S. Kathuria, Adv.', 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-10-12', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' V.S. Aggarwal, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">V.S. Aggarwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present revision petition has been filed by Deepak Kumar, hereinafter described as 'the petitioner' directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Barnala, dated 4.9.1997. By virtue of the Impugned Judgment, the learned Appellate Authority, Barnala, had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Barnala, dated 2.2.1994 and instead dismissed the petition for eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts alleged are that Hem Raj is stated to be the tenant in the suit premises. A petition for eviction has been filed against him asserting that arrears of rent have not been paid from 1.2.1989 and that the tenant has sublet the suit premises to Durga Dass who is running the business of dry-cleaning without the consent of the petitioner-landlord in writing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition for eviction had been contested. It was alleged that rent has already been paid uptil 30.3.1990 and further the Durga Dass is doing the work of dry-cleaning in one portion of the shop. They divide their earnings on 50:50 basis daily The entire shop remains in the possession of the respondent-tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The findings turned were that entire arrears of rent had not been tendered on the first date of hearing and further that the property in question has been sublet by the tenant to Durga Dass. Accordingly, an order of eviction was passed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-tenant preferred an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority upset the findings of the learned Rent Controller on both the counts. It was held that rent had been paid uptil 30.3.1990 and that there was no arrears when the petition was filed on 27.01.1990. It was further concluded that the property has not been sublet to Durga Dass. Accordingly, the petition for eviction was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner had only pressed the ground that the property in question has been sublet by the respondent-tenant to one Durga Dass.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As already pointed out above and rementioned at the risk of repetition, while the petitioner claimed that a third person Durga Dass had been inducted in the suit property, the plea of the respondent-tenant was that Durga Dass is carrying on the work with him and they share their profits in the evening on 50:50 basis. Durga Dass even was examined as a witness who appeared as RW2. He stated that he is carrying on the business of dry-cleaning in partnership with tenant Hem Raj. In the evening, they share their earnings half and half. According to him, Hem Raj opens and closes the shop. In almost identical terms is the statement of Hem Raj RW5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It is abundantly clear from the above said fact that the defence offered by the respondent was in terms that, in fact, there was a partnership among Durga Dass and the respondent-tenant. It is well known that under Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, partnership is a relation between the persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. It is commonly being stated that it is an association of persons and a compendious way of describing the said association.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Once a defence has been taken that a third person in occupation is a partner then the onus to show satisfactorily that such a business in partnership is being carried with the third person. The proposition as such was not being disputed and if there is a genuine partnership arrived at by the tenant who retain the legal control of the premises then it will not be a case of subletting.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Reverting back to the facts of the case, one can conveniently refer to the admitted fact that a Local Commissioner had been appointed to visit the spot. He reported that Durga Dass was doing business of dry-cleaning. The presence of the third person in this regard is, therefore, not denied. In fact, the, written statement also admits the said fact. It is admitted by Durga Dass, as noted by the learned Rent Controller, that on the cash memo it is printed Durga Dass Chauhan Dry-Cleaner. Furthermore, there is nothing on the record as to what are the terms of the partnership. It has been stated that on daily basis they distribute the income 50:50 each. In the peculiar facts, the said contention is difficult to believe. The reasons are not far to fetch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is in evidence that there are separate shutters to the premises. There are no income tax returns produced by the respondent-tenant so as to indicate that income from the said business of dry-cleaning has also been shown, Mere ipsi dixit of the plea that they are doing business in partnership, therefore, cannot be believed. The learned Appellate Authority, therefore, misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that the legal possession has not been parted with. It has already been pointed out above that it is for the respondent-tenant to show that he is carrying on business in partnership with Durga Dass. The existence of partnership looks a far of dream. It is not proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Basant Kaur and Ors. v. Shanti Devi and Ors., (1991-1)99 P.L.R. 115. In the cited case, there were persons others than the tenant doing the business. It was asserted that they were partners with the tenant. There was nothing to indicate as to what was invested by the tenant in the partnership. The tenant was not entitled to take part in the business. The conclusion was that the partnership deed was not genuine. In the present case, no such partnership deed has been forthcoming. Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sales Limited v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1998 Haryana Rent Reporter 150, had also considered the same question. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, it was held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Sub-tenancy or sub-letting comes into existence when the tenant gives up possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual agreement or understanding between the tenant and the person to whom the possession is so delivered. In this process, the landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted behind the back of the landlord, concealing the overt acts and transferring possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter stranger to the landlord. In the sense that the landlord had not let out the premises to that person nor had he allowed or consented to his entering into possession over the demised property. It is the actual, physical and exclusive possession of that person, instead of the tenant, which ultimately reveals to the landlord that the tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person into possession of that property. In such a situation, it would be difficult for the landlord to prove by direct evidence, the contract, or agreement of understanding between the tenant and the sub-tenant. It would also be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property had been sublet had paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sub-lease ...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As already pointed out above, the respondent-tenant has failed to establish the factum of partnership between him and Durga Dass. Durga Dass is functioning from the property and cash memos are printed in his own name as dry-cleaner. Since the landlord is a stranger to any agreement between the tenant and the sub-tenant, the Court would be justified in drawing inference of subletting.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is true that this Court ordinarily will not interfere in a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority. But when the finding as such is based on misreading of evidence, then it is legal impropriety and, therefore, under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, this Court deems it necessary to interfere. 16. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Authority is set aside. Instead, an order of eviction is passed against the respondent-tenant. The respondent is granted three months time to vacate the premises.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(2000)124PLR827', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Hem Raj and ors.', 'sub' => 'Tenancy', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '627514' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Deepak Kumar Vs. Hem Raj and ors. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 4', (int) 1 => 'the Indian Partnership Act', (int) 2 => 'Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'V.S. Aggarwal', (int) 1 => 'Deepak Kumar', (int) 2 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 3 => 'the Impugned Judgment', (int) 4 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 5 => 'Rent Controller', (int) 6 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 7 => 'Rent Controller', (int) 8 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 9 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 10 => 'Rent Controller', (int) 11 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 12 => 'Durga', (int) 13 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 14 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 15 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 16 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 17 => 'Rent Controller', (int) 18 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 19 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'Supreme Court', (int) 22 => 'Haryana Rent', (int) 23 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 24 => 'Court', (int) 25 => 'Court', (int) 26 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'Appellate Authority' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Barnala', (int) 1 => 'Barnala', (int) 2 => 'Barnala', (int) 3 => 'subletting.15' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '4.9.1997', (int) 1 => '2.2.1994', (int) 2 => '1.2.1989', (int) 3 => 'one', (int) 4 => '50:50', (int) 5 => '27.01.1990', (int) 6 => '6.', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => '50:50', (int) 9 => 'half', (int) 10 => 'half', (int) 11 => '115', (int) 12 => '150', (int) 13 => '4', (int) 14 => '5', (int) 15 => '16' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Hem Raj', (int) 1 => 'Dass', (int) 2 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 3 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 4 => 'Hem Raj', (int) 5 => 'Hem Raj', (int) 6 => 'Hem Raj', (int) 7 => 'Basant Kaur', (int) 8 => 'Shanti Devi', (int) 9 => 'Dass' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'third', (int) 2 => 'third', (int) 3 => 'third', (int) 4 => 'third' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'evening' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1932', (int) 1 => 'subletting.11', (int) 2 => 'daily', (int) 3 => '1998', (int) 4 => 'three months' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Durga Dass Chauhan Dry-Cleaner' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '627514', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/136649/east-punjab-urban-rent-restriction-act-1949-complete-act">East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949</a> - Sections 13(2) and 15(5)', 'appealno' => 'Civil Revision No. 194 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Deepak Kumar', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Deepak Kumar Vs. Hem Raj and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - It is well known that under Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, partnership is a relation between the persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sub-lease .14. As already pointed out above, the respondent-tenant has failed to establish the factum of partnership between him and Durga Dass.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Bharat Sales Limited v. Life Insurance Corporation of India;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Amarjit Markan, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' H.S. Kathuria, Adv.', 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-10-12', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' V.S. Aggarwal, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">V.S. Aggarwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present revision petition has been filed by Deepak Kumar, hereinafter described as 'the petitioner' directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Barnala, dated 4.9.1997. By virtue of the Impugned Judgment, the learned Appellate Authority, Barnala, had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Barnala, dated 2.2.1994 and instead dismissed the petition for eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts alleged are that Hem Raj is stated to be the tenant in the suit premises. A petition for eviction has been filed against him asserting that arrears of rent have not been paid from 1.2.1989 and that the tenant has sublet the suit premises to Durga Dass who is running the business of dry-cleaning without the consent of the petitioner-landlord in writing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition for eviction had been contested. It was alleged that rent has already been paid uptil 30.3.1990 and further the Durga Dass is doing the work of dry-cleaning in one portion of the shop. They divide their earnings on 50:50 basis daily The entire shop remains in the possession of the respondent-tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The findings turned were that entire arrears of rent had not been tendered on the first date of hearing and further that the property in question has been sublet by the tenant to Durga Dass. Accordingly, an order of eviction was passed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-tenant preferred an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority upset the findings of the learned Rent Controller on both the counts. It was held that rent had been paid uptil 30.3.1990 and that there was no arrears when the petition was filed on 27.01.1990. It was further concluded that the property has not been sublet to Durga Dass. Accordingly, the petition for eviction was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner had only pressed the ground that the property in question has been sublet by the respondent-tenant to one Durga Dass.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As already pointed out above and rementioned at the risk of repetition, while the petitioner claimed that a third person Durga Dass had been inducted in the suit property, the plea of the respondent-tenant was that Durga Dass is carrying on the work with him and they share their profits in the evening on 50:50 basis. Durga Dass even was examined as a witness who appeared as RW2. He stated that he is carrying on the business of dry-cleaning in partnership with tenant Hem Raj. In the evening, they share their earnings half and half. According to him, Hem Raj opens and closes the shop. In almost identical terms is the statement of Hem Raj RW5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It is abundantly clear from the above said fact that the defence offered by the respondent was in terms that, in fact, there was a partnership among Durga Dass and the respondent-tenant. It is well known that under Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, partnership is a relation between the persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. It is commonly being stated that it is an association of persons and a compendious way of describing the said association.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Once a defence has been taken that a third person in occupation is a partner then the onus to show satisfactorily that such a business in partnership is being carried with the third person. The proposition as such was not being disputed and if there is a genuine partnership arrived at by the tenant who retain the legal control of the premises then it will not be a case of subletting.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Reverting back to the facts of the case, one can conveniently refer to the admitted fact that a Local Commissioner had been appointed to visit the spot. He reported that Durga Dass was doing business of dry-cleaning. The presence of the third person in this regard is, therefore, not denied. In fact, the, written statement also admits the said fact. It is admitted by Durga Dass, as noted by the learned Rent Controller, that on the cash memo it is printed Durga Dass Chauhan Dry-Cleaner. Furthermore, there is nothing on the record as to what are the terms of the partnership. It has been stated that on daily basis they distribute the income 50:50 each. In the peculiar facts, the said contention is difficult to believe. The reasons are not far to fetch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is in evidence that there are separate shutters to the premises. There are no income tax returns produced by the respondent-tenant so as to indicate that income from the said business of dry-cleaning has also been shown, Mere ipsi dixit of the plea that they are doing business in partnership, therefore, cannot be believed. The learned Appellate Authority, therefore, misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that the legal possession has not been parted with. It has already been pointed out above that it is for the respondent-tenant to show that he is carrying on business in partnership with Durga Dass. The existence of partnership looks a far of dream. It is not proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Basant Kaur and Ors. v. Shanti Devi and Ors., (1991-1)99 P.L.R. 115. In the cited case, there were persons others than the tenant doing the business. It was asserted that they were partners with the tenant. There was nothing to indicate as to what was invested by the tenant in the partnership. The tenant was not entitled to take part in the business. The conclusion was that the partnership deed was not genuine. In the present case, no such partnership deed has been forthcoming. Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sales Limited v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1998 Haryana Rent Reporter 150, had also considered the same question. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, it was held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Sub-tenancy or sub-letting comes into existence when the tenant gives up possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual agreement or understanding between the tenant and the person to whom the possession is so delivered. In this process, the landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted behind the back of the landlord, concealing the overt acts and transferring possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter stranger to the landlord. In the sense that the landlord had not let out the premises to that person nor had he allowed or consented to his entering into possession over the demised property. It is the actual, physical and exclusive possession of that person, instead of the tenant, which ultimately reveals to the landlord that the tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person into possession of that property. In such a situation, it would be difficult for the landlord to prove by direct evidence, the contract, or agreement of understanding between the tenant and the sub-tenant. It would also be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property had been sublet had paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sub-lease ...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As already pointed out above, the respondent-tenant has failed to establish the factum of partnership between him and Durga Dass. Durga Dass is functioning from the property and cash memos are printed in his own name as dry-cleaner. Since the landlord is a stranger to any agreement between the tenant and the sub-tenant, the Court would be justified in drawing inference of subletting.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is true that this Court ordinarily will not interfere in a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority. But when the finding as such is based on misreading of evidence, then it is legal impropriety and, therefore, under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, this Court deems it necessary to interfere. 16. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Authority is set aside. Instead, an order of eviction is passed against the respondent-tenant. The respondent is granted three months time to vacate the premises.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(2000)124PLR827', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Hem Raj and ors.', 'sub' => 'Tenancy', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '627514' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Deepak Kumar Vs. Hem Raj and ors. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 4', (int) 1 => 'the Indian Partnership Act', (int) 2 => 'Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'V.S. Aggarwal', (int) 1 => 'Deepak Kumar', (int) 2 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 3 => 'the Impugned Judgment', (int) 4 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 5 => 'Rent Controller', (int) 6 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 7 => 'Rent Controller', (int) 8 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 9 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 10 => 'Rent Controller', (int) 11 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 12 => 'Durga', (int) 13 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 14 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 15 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 16 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 17 => 'Rent Controller', (int) 18 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 19 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'Supreme Court', (int) 22 => 'Haryana Rent', (int) 23 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 24 => 'Court', (int) 25 => 'Court', (int) 26 => 'Appellate Authority', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'Appellate Authority' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Barnala', (int) 1 => 'Barnala', (int) 2 => 'Barnala', (int) 3 => 'subletting.15' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '4.9.1997', (int) 1 => '2.2.1994', (int) 2 => '1.2.1989', (int) 3 => 'one', (int) 4 => '50:50', (int) 5 => '27.01.1990', (int) 6 => '6.', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => '50:50', (int) 9 => 'half', (int) 10 => 'half', (int) 11 => '115', (int) 12 => '150', (int) 13 => '4', (int) 14 => '5', (int) 15 => '16' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Hem Raj', (int) 1 => 'Dass', (int) 2 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 3 => 'Durga Dass', (int) 4 => 'Hem Raj', (int) 5 => 'Hem Raj', (int) 6 => 'Hem Raj', (int) 7 => 'Basant Kaur', (int) 8 => 'Shanti Devi', (int) 9 => 'Dass' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'third', (int) 2 => 'third', (int) 3 => 'third', (int) 4 => 'third' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'evening' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1932', (int) 1 => 'subletting.11', (int) 2 => 'daily', (int) 3 => '1998', (int) 4 => 'three months' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Durga Dass Chauhan Dry-Cleaner' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '627514', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/136649/east-punjab-urban-rent-restriction-act-1949-complete-act">East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949</a> - Sections 13(2) and 15(5)', 'appealno' => 'Civil Revision No. 194 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Deepak Kumar', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Deepak Kumar Vs. Hem Raj and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - - It is well known that under Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, partnership is a relation between the persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sub-lease .14. As already pointed out above, the respondent-tenant has failed to establish the factum of partnership between him and Durga Dass.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Bharat Sales Limited v. Life Insurance Corporation of India;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Amarjit Markan, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' H.S. Kathuria, Adv.', 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-10-12', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' V.S. Aggarwal, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">V.S. Aggarwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present revision petition has been filed by Deepak Kumar, hereinafter described as 'the petitioner' directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Barnala, dated 4.9.1997. By virtue of the Impugned Judgment, the learned Appellate Authority, Barnala, had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Barnala, dated 2.2.1994 and instead dismissed the petition for eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts alleged are that Hem Raj is stated to be the tenant in the suit premises. A petition for eviction has been filed against him asserting that arrears of rent have not been paid from 1.2.1989 and that the tenant has sublet the suit premises to Durga Dass who is running the business of dry-cleaning without the consent of the petitioner-landlord in writing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition for eviction had been contested. It was alleged that rent has already been paid uptil 30.3.1990 and further the Durga Dass is doing the work of dry-cleaning in one portion of the shop. They divide their earnings on 50:50 basis daily The entire shop remains in the possession of the respondent-tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The findings turned were that entire arrears of rent had not been tendered on the first date of hearing and further that the property in question has been sublet by the tenant to Durga Dass. Accordingly, an order of eviction was passed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-tenant preferred an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority upset the findings of the learned Rent Controller on both the counts. It was held that rent had been paid uptil 30.3.1990 and that there was no arrears when the petition was filed on 27.01.1990. It was further concluded that the property has not been sublet to Durga Dass. Accordingly, the petition for eviction was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner had only pressed the ground that the property in question has been sublet by the respondent-tenant to one Durga Dass.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As already pointed out above and rementioned at the risk of repetition, while the petitioner claimed that a third person Durga Dass had been inducted in the suit property, the plea of the respondent-tenant was that Durga Dass is carrying on the work with him and they share their profits in the evening on 50:50 basis. Durga Dass even was examined as a witness who appeared as RW2. He stated that he is carrying on the business of dry-cleaning in partnership with tenant Hem Raj. In the evening, they share their earnings half and half. According to him, Hem Raj opens and closes the shop. In almost identical terms is the statement of Hem Raj RW5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It is abundantly clear from the above said fact that the defence offered by the respondent was in terms that, in fact, there was a partnership among Durga Dass and the respondent-tenant. It is well known that under Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, partnership is a relation between the persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. It is commonly being stated that it is an association of persons and a compendious way of describing the said association.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Once a defence has been taken that a third person in occupation is a partner then the onus to show satisfactorily that such a business in partnership is being carried with the third person. The proposition as such was not being disputed and if there is a genuine partnership arrived at by the tenant who retain the legal control of the premises then it will not be a case of subletting.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Reverting back to the facts of the case, one can conveniently refer to the admitted fact that a Local Commissioner had been appointed to visit the spot. He reported that Durga Dass was doing business of dry-cleaning. The presence of the third person in this regard is, therefore, not denied. In fact, the, written statement also admits the said fact. It is admitted by Durga Dass, as noted by the learned Rent Controller, that on the cash memo it is printed Durga Dass Chauhan Dry-Cleaner. Furthermore, there is nothing on the record as to what are the terms of the partnership. It has been stated that on daily basis they distribute the income 50:50 each. In the peculiar facts, the said contention is difficult to believe. The reasons are not far to fetch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is in evidence that there are separate shutters to the premises. There are no income tax returns produced by the respondent-tenant so as to indicate that income from the said business of dry-cleaning has also been shown, Mere ipsi dixit of the plea that they are doing business in partnership, therefore, cannot be believed. The learned Appellate Authority, therefore, misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that the legal possession has not been parted with. It has already been pointed out above that it is for the respondent-tenant to show that he is carrying on business in partnership with Durga Dass. The existence of partnership looks a far of dream. It is not proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Basant Kaur and Ors. v. Shanti Devi and Ors., (1991-1)99 P.L.R. 115. In the cited case, there were persons others than the tenant doing the business. It was asserted that they were partners with the tenant. There was nothing to indicate as to what was invested by the tenant in the partnership. The tenant was not entitled to take part in the business. The conclusion was that the partnership deed was not genuine. In the present case, no such partnership deed has been forthcoming. Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sales Limited v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1998 Haryana Rent Reporter 150, had also considered the same question. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, it was held as under :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Sub-tenancy or sub-letting comes into existence when the tenant gives up possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual agreement or understanding between the tenant and the person to whom the possession is so delivered. In this process, the landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted behind the back of the landlord, concealing the overt acts and transferring possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter stranger to the landlord. In the sense that the landlord had not let out the premises to that person nor had he allowed or consented to his entering into possession over the demised property. It is the actual, physical and exclusive possession of that person, instead of the tenant, which ultimately reveals to the landlord that the tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person into possession of that property. In such a situation, it would be difficult for the landlord to prove by direct evidence, the contract, or agreement of understanding between the tenant and the sub-tenant. It would also be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property had been sublet had paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sub-lease ...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As already pointed out above, the respondent-tenant has failed to establish the factum of partnership between him and Durga Dass. Durga Dass is functioning from the property and cash memos are printed in his own name as dry-cleaner. Since the landlord is a stranger to any agreement between the tenant and the sub-tenant, the Court would be justified in drawing inference of subletting.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is true that this Court ordinarily will not interfere in a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority. But when the finding as such is based on misreading of evidence, then it is legal impropriety and, therefore, under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, this Court deems it necessary to interfere. 16. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Authority is set aside. Instead, an order of eviction is passed against the respondent-tenant. The respondent is granted three months time to vacate the premises.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(2000)124PLR827', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Hem Raj and ors.', 'sub' => 'Tenancy', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '627514' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 4, the Indian Partnership Act, Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act
ORG: V.S. Aggarwal, Deepak Kumar, Appellate Authority, the Impugned Judgment, Appellate Authority, Rent Controller, Durga Dass, Rent Controller, Durga Dass, Appellate Authority, Rent Controller, Durga Dass, Durga, Durga Dass, Durga Dass, Durga Dass, Durga Dass, Rent Controller, Appellate Authority, Durga Dass, Court, Supreme Court, Haryana Rent, Durga Dass, Court, Court, Appellate Authority, Court, Appellate Authority
NORP: J.1
GPE: Barnala, Barnala, Barnala, subletting.15
CARDINAL: 4.9.1997, 2.2.1994, 1.2.1989, one, 50:50, 27.01.1990, 6., one, 50:50, half, half, 115, 150, 4, 5, 16
PERSON: Hem Raj, Dass, Durga Dass, Durga Dass, Hem Raj, Hem Raj, Hem Raj, Basant Kaur, Shanti Devi, Dass
ORDINAL: first, third, third, third, third
TIME: evening
DATE: 1932, subletting.11, daily, 1998, three months
WORK_OF_ART: Durga Dass Chauhan Dry-Cleaner