GOPI CHAND Vs. GULAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The shop, in dispute was owned by one Devat Ram, who died on November 2, 1959. He had a son Madan Lal and two grandsons Parshotam Dass and Chander Parkash from his son Madan Lal. Before his death, Devat Ram executed a will in favour of his two grandsons and the wife of Parshotam Dass. Consequently, there was litigation between Madan Lal on one side and his sons and the wife of Parshotam Dass on the other, regarding the succession to the property left by Devat Ram by will. Ultimately, the dispute was settled by a compromise in July, 1969, on the basis of which the shop, in dispute, fell to the share of Madan Lal who sold the same in favour of Gulab Singh, respondent, in 1970. The said Gulab Singh filed an ejectment application in the Court of the Rent Controller, Rohtak, against Nand Lal and the present revision petitioner on November 28, 1970, on the ground that the arrears of rent from January 19, 1970, upto the date of the ejectment application had not been paid and that the shop, in dispute, had been sublet by Nand Lal, tenant, to the present revision petitioner, Gopi Chand. The eviction application was contested by the present revision petitioner whereas Nand Lal, respondent, admitted the contentions of the landlord. The present revision petitioner alleged in his written statement that the shop, in dispute, was never given on rent to Nand Lal, that he was in fact, the tenant through out and that he had been paying rent to Chander Parkash one of the sons of Madan Lal and that he had paid the rent to Chander Parkash upto May 31, 1970 It was also urged that the eviction application was collusive. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly contended that the lease deed , Exhibit A.W. 4/1, dated June 23, 1955 executed by Nand Lal in favour of Devat Ram, the original owner of the shop, in dispute, is not admissible in evidence as it is unregistered and that a perusal of this lease deed shows that one of its terms was that the yearly rent of Rs. 162/- has been reserved and as such, the same required registration under section 17 of the Registration Act, I have perused this lease need carefully. It is in Urdu language. The relevant portion of same relating to the terms and conditions of the lease when translation into English read as follows :

(3.) The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the lease deed, Exhibit A.W. 4/1 was executed by Nand Lal in favour of the owner of the shop in the year 1955, but in fact, Nand Lal never entered into possession and the lease deed was only a parer transaction. For this purpose, he has taken me through the evidence adduced by the parties The case of the petitioner is that he is a tenant of the shop, in dispute, directly under Chander Parkash one of the sons of Madan Lal and that he had been paying rent to him and obtaining receipts therefor from him, but be did not produce the receipts in evidence; nor did he produce the account books which were in his possession according to his statement. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner did have the receipts regarding payment of rent in his possession and that he had delivered the same to his, counsel when the case was pending in the Court of the Rent Controller, but the same had been lost. According to him, the account books are still in possession of the petitioner though they mere not produced. During the pendency of the case in the Court of the Rent Controller, at no stage, the plea was taken on behalf of the petitioner that the rent receipts had been lost; nor was any request made for permission to produce secondary evidence in that regard. On the other hand, the landlord-respondent produced both oral and documentary evidence including the statement of Nand Lal, tenant, himself to show that the shop, in dispute, had originally been given on lease by the original landlord Devat Ram to Nand Lal in the year 1955 and that Nand Lal remained in possession of the same for a number of years and thereafter this shop came in possession of the petitioner Gopi Chand. The learned Appellate Authority, Rohtak, has considered the entire evidence in detail and came to a firm conclusion that the shop, in dispute, had been sublet to Gopi Chand, petitioner, by Nand Lal, I do not find and infirmity in this finding as the same is based on appreciation of evidence.