- (1.) This is a revision petition against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, who has allowed the appeal filed by the landlords and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner.
(2.) Kartar Singh and others, landlords, filed an application for ejectment under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against Brij Lal, Ved Parkash, their tenants and Des Raj (petitioner) on the ground that the shop in dispute had been rented out to Brij Lal and Ved Parkash at the rate of Rs. 800 per annum as rent. The tenants did not pay the rent from 1st of September, 1971 onwards. They had sublet a portion of the shop in dispute to Des Raj, petitioner, about four years back without the consent of the landlords in writing Brij Lal and Ved Parkash, respondents Nos. 5 and 6 admitted the claim and the allegations made by the landlords. They did not tender any rent. However, Des Raj, petitioner resisted the application and ? averred that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not sublet any portion of the shop in dispute to him They had colluded with the landlords to get him evicted. The Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent No. 1 has sublet the building in dispute to respondent No. 3 ? 2. Relief. The parties led evidence. After hearing the arguments the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had colluded with the landlords. There was no evidence that any portion of the shop in dispute had been sublet to Des Raj. He, therefore, dismissed the ejectment application. The landlords filed an appeal against the judgment of the Rent Controller and the same was allowed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority carefully examined the evidence led by the parties. He found Entries Exhibits Al to A8 occurring in the Khata Bahi of the tenants to be reliable because the entries were found in the books of account which were kept in the regular course of business. These entries showed that they had been brought to the Khata Bahi from the Rokar Bahi. They relate to a period of over live years. They showed that rent had been raid by Des Raj to Brij Lal and Ved Parkash from 1965 onwards Brij Lal and Ved Parkash were independent persons. They were not in any way connected with or interested in the landlords. There was no motive for them to create false evidence and themselves incur the liability of ejectment. They have not been shown to be in any way inimical to Des Raj. He did not believe the evidence led by Des Raj and has been given cogent reasons for that. This evidence mainly consisted of oral statements of Hans Raj, Mohan Lal, Mohinder Singh and Des Raj himself. They had stated that the shop had been leased out to Messrs Mohan Lal Sadda Lal and then the name was changed to Brij Lal Ved Parkash. Exhibit R. 1 is an excerpt from the house tax assessment register. There is an entry in the year 1951 which shows that four shops were rented out to Mohan Lal, Sadda Lal, predecessors-in-interest of Brij Lal and Ved Parkash. Two chubaras were in possession of Des Raj petitioner. As rightly conceded by the learned counsel of Des Raj before the learned Appellate Authority, this document did not help Des Raj. The shop portion was admittedly in the possession of Mohan Lal Sadda Lal. Des Raj is shown to he in possession of two chubaras only. All the witnesses of Des Raj including he himself had stated that Brij Lai and Ved Parkash were running the shop in the front portion. So Brij Lal. Ved Parkash are not strangers. Even Exhibit R I shows that their predecessors-in-interest were in possession of the shops. Under these circumstances, the It earned Appellate Authority was fully justified in relying upon the statement of Brij Lal and the account books produced by him.
(3.) Mr D.R. Puri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that no reliance could be placed on Exhibits A. 1 to A. 8, because they are entries only in the Rokar Bahi. The Day Book has not been produced. In the absence of the Day Book, the entries in the Bahi Khata are not relevant and a admissible. In support of this contention, he has relied upon M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India and another, 1966 AIR(P&H) 229 and Chandi Ram Deka vs. Jaminikanta Deka,1952 AIR(Ass) 92. With great respect to the learned Judge who decided these cases, I am not able to concur with the views expressed by them. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act is clear. It makes the evidence of account books regularly maintained relevant and admissible. These books were produced. The entries were proved by Brij Lal without any objection. They stand proved on the file. They are corroborated by the oral statement of Brij Lal and to some extent by the statement of Kartar Singh, the landlord. They have been relied upon by the Appellate Authority. Appreciation of evidence does not fall within the scope of revisional jurisdiction. I am not inclined to take a different view of the evidence than the one taken by the learned Appellate Authority.;