GANPAT RAM KHOLSA Vs. KISHEN LAL
LAWS(P&H)-1957-11-30
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on November 18,1957

GANPAT RAM KHOLSA Appellant
VERSUS
KISHEN LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality, propriety and competency of the appellate order of the District Judge, confirming the order of eviction passed against the two respondents by the Rent Controller under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, and allowing a period of three months from the date of his order within which the landlord was to be put in possession of the shop of question situate in Gurgaon, Cantonment Bazar.
(2.) The landlord Kishan Lal made an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (No. 3 of 1949), alleging that his shop had been taken on rent by respondent No. 1, Singer Sewing Machine Co., at a rent of Rs. 10/8/- per mensem and a document dated the 12th of January, 1945, was executed. Respondent No. 2 Ganpat Ram Khosla, who is now the petitioner in this Court, used to work as the Manager of Singer Sewing Machine Company. With effect from the 30th of August, 1954, the Company closed its business and sublet the shop to G.R. Kholsa without any intimation to the landlord, which act was alleged to be contrary to law. It was prayed that the respondents were liable to eviction on the following grounds :- (a) That the landlord required it for his own use : (b) that respondent No. 1, the Singer Sewing Machine Company, had sublet the shop to G.R. Khosla without the written consent of the landlord; and (c) that no rent had been paid by the Company from the 1st of September, 1951, till the date of the application.
(3.) In his written statement, G.R. Khosla denied the allegations and stated that he was in possession of the shop since 1933 as a tenant, when the rent was Rs. 7 per mensem, and in 1947, the rent was raised to Rs. 10/8/- per mensem. The Company had no concern with the landlord as the shop had been taken on rent by him. He was the managing salesman of the company and the company used to pay to him, as a private arrangement, the amount of rent and he alone was the real tenant. The Company in its written statement denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and denied having taken the property on rent on the 12th of January, 1945. It was then stated that the Company closed its business at Gurgaon on the 30th of August, 1954, and sent its Supervisor to Gurgaon on the 28th of August, 1954, who paid the rent for the month of August, 1954, and handed over the shop to the landlord. This shop was never sublet to G.R. Khosla.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.