Civil Revision No. 3565 of 1989. Case: Jagdish Chand Vs Ved Parkash Puri and Anr.. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | Civil Revision No. 3565 of 1989 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K.S. Grewal, Adv. and For Respondents: M.L. Sarin, Sr. Adv. and Ashish Handa, Adv. |
| Judges | J.V. Gupta, ACJ |
| Issue | East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13, 15(5) |
| Citation | 1990 (98) PLR 359 |
| Judgement Date | June 04, 1990 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
J.V. Gupta, ACJ
-
This is tenant's petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the Courts below.
-
The landlord Ved Parkash rented out the shop in dispute vide rent note Ex. A-2, in the year 1978 to Jagdish Chand tenant. The preheat ejectment application was filed on 25th November, 1986, inter alia on the ground that the tenant has sublet the demised premises to his brother Baldev Kumar and, therefore, was liable to ejectment.
-
In the written statement it was denied that the tenant had sublet the demised premises to Baldev Kumar. It is stated that he was employed in the Military service as Naib Subedar at Delhi; he had applied for the pre nature retirement as he has served more than 20 years' service and at the time of execution of the rent note, he had in mind to retire from service and to do business jointly with his brothers Raj Kumar, Baldev Kumar etc. as they constitute joint Hindu Family. When he executed the rent note in favour of Ved Parkash this fact was known to Ved Parkash that he was in Military service. One shop adjacent to the shop in quest on is on rent with Raj Kumar, the brother of the tenant, where he runs Scooter, Motor-cycle repair workship Whereas in the shop in dispute the tenant wanted to do the business of spare parts of Scooter etc Later on his application for premature retirement was refused by the Military Authorities and from the very inception of the tenancy, his brother Baldev Kumar is doing his business on behalf of all hits brothers, being Joint Hindu Family. A plea was also taken that the wife of the tenant Jagdish Chand a so looks after his bus ness. After framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead their evidence the Rent Controller found that the onus shifts on the other s de to prove as to how the person who is alleged to be sub tenant is in possession. According to the Rent Controller, it is not proved satisfactorily that Baldev Kumar is not subtenant under Jagdish Chand tenant Rather the conclusion is that the tenant his parted with the possession and that now possession is with Baldev Kumar respondent No 2 exclusively, and that he is running his bus ness in the demised premises Consequently, eviction order was passed on January 23, 1989. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order.
-
Learned counsel for the tenant petitioner submitted that from the very inception of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial