- (1.) This is a revision partition against judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner landlords against one of the learned Rent Controller, disallowing the ejectment application against the tenants.
(2.) Ruldu Mal was the initial owner of the premises in dispute which is a shop. He let out premises in dispute. He let out this shop to Sant Ram and Parkash Lal. A rent note was executed by the tenants in favour of Ruldu Mal. Sometime in 1949 Roshan Lal husband of the sister of the tenant was inducted in these premises. After the death of Ruldu Mal, he was succeeded by Tarsem Lal, Bipan Kumar, his sons and Kamlesh Kumari his daughter Sant Ram and Parkash Lal execute another rent note is favour of Tarsem Lal and Vipan Kumar. There was a family partition amongst the heirs of Ruldu Mal and the shop in dispute fell to the share of Kamlesh Kumari. She sold this shop to Balbir Kumar and Ashok Kumar on 19th August, 1970. They filled an application for ejectment of Sant Ram and Parkash Lal their tenants inter alia on the ground that the tenants had sublet this shop to Roshan Lal. The tenants and Roshan Lal contested this application. Sant Ram and Parkash Lal pleaded that the shop had been let out to Roshan Lal himself. They had scribed the rent-deed only because Ruldu Mal was not inclined to let the shop to Roshan Lal a total stranger and the rent note was scribed as a sort of security. They however, pleaded that they had never entered into possession of the shop and from the very beginning Roshan Lal was in possession of the shop. in the alternative it was pleaded that if Roshan Lal be not proved to be a direct tenant then the landlord had given written consent by receiving rent direct from Roshan Lal for the demised premises against receipts in writing. The parties went to trial. on the following issues: 1. Whether Kamlesh Kumari was the exclusive owner of the shop in dispute and she sold the same to the petitioners 2. Whether respondents 2 and 3 have sub-lot the shop to respondent No. 1 3. Whether the tenancy has been determined by a valid notice 4. Relief.
(3.) The learned Rent Controller, decided issue Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of the petitioners and issue No. 2 against them. He held that Kamlesh Kumari was the sole owner and that respondents 2 and 3 (Sant Ram and Parkash Lal) had not sublet the shop in dispute to respondent No. 3 Roshan Lal. Dissatisfied with this decision, the landlords filed an appeal. It was argued by the appellants that the shop had been let out to Sant Ram and Parkash Lal. They had sublet it to Roshan Lal. Roshan Lal was not accepted as a tenant or a sub-tenant by the appellants or their predecessors-in-interest. In any, case, there was no written consent to the alleged subletting. The learned Appellate Authority examined the evidence, led on the file in minute details. The respondents had produced receipts Ex R. 11 to R. 15, which showed that Tarsem Lal son of Ruldu Mal had been receiving rent from Roshan Lal and had been issuing receipts in token thereof. They further got proved entries in the account books of the landlords Ex. R. 16 to R. 25 which showed that the rent of the shop in dispute was being received from Roshan Lal right from the year 1956 and the entries regarding the same were being continuously and regularly made in the books of account of the firm of the landlords. Tarsem Lal has scribed receipt R. 16 which reads as under : "Received Rs. 56/- as rent upto August 27, 1970 from Roshan Patar Bhandar. We had transferred this shop in the name of our sister Kamlesh Kumari. It has been sold to Madan Lal on 28th August, 1970. Now onwards the rent of this shop will be received by Madan Lal." This document is dated 7th September, 1970. It is scribed on a letter pad of Roshan Patar Bhandar. It has also come in evidence that Roshan Lal is owner of Roshan Patar Bhandar. In some of the receipt., it has been specifically mentioned that the rent has been received from Roshan Lal, On the basis of this evidence the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that Tarsem Lal one of the landlords had been accepting rent from Roshan Lal on his own behalf and on behalf of his father and partner Gian Chand and this amounted to consent in writing. The conduct of other landlords by allowing Bahi entries in their account books regarding the receipt of rent from Roshan Lal clearly amounted to giving full authority to Tarsem Lal for giving the said consent in writing. He has also concluded that even if it be assumed that Roshan Lal was sub tenant, the premises had been sublet to him with the consent in writing of the original landlords The petitioners are bound by the acts and conduct of their predecessors-in-interest. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the landlords.;