Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant of shop, in question for the last about 15 years at the rate of Rs. 82.50P per month besides taxes. He claims that his business of manufacturing tin boxes etc., from the said shop is the sole source of livelihood. In 1996, S.C.C. Suit No. 39 of 1996 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for a decree for ejectment of the petitioner as well as for a decree of recovery of sum of Rs. 2227.50P towards rent and damages for use and occupation of the aforesaid shop. The suit was filed with the allegation that the petitioner-tenant is in arrears of rent and also on the ground that he has sublet the shop to one Sri Munshi Lal. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement denying the allegations levelled in the plaint. Judge, Small Causes Court decreed the suit vide order dated 17.12.2004.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2004 in S.C.C. Suit No. 39 of 1996, the petitioner challenged the same in S.C.C. Revision No. 1 of 2005 in the Court of District Judge, Aligarh. The revision was partly allowed by the respondent No. 2 vide judgment and order dated 10.8.2006 holding that the findings of the trial court with regard to service of notice are correct. In so far as issue No. 2 regarding default in payment of rent is concerned, it has been held that it is liable to be allowed for recovery of Rs. 2227.50P. The order of the revisional court is as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Judge, Small Causes Court has held that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and suit could not have been proceeded on this ground. Revisional court has categorically held that the petitioner was not in default, however, the case was liable to be decreed on the ground of sub letting by misreading evidence and relying upon an inadmissible evidence recorded a perverse finding. It is submitted that the findings of the courts below are virtually in defiance of law of Hon'ble Supreme Court for arriving at perverse finding that the premises, in question was sub let by the petitioner to one Sri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, his nephew. It is submitted that Sales Tax proceedings and record of a person cannot be relied upon for proving the factum of sub letting.;