GOKAL CHAND MITAL, J. - (1.) ON 23.3.1975, Narain Dass Kapoor filed an application for ejectment of his tenant Bhola Nath and sub-tenant Yog Raj from the shop situate in the town of Amritsar bearing NO. 2187/10 in Chowk Phullanwala on the ground that the tenant had sub-let the premises to the sub-tenant without his written permission. The tenant was proceeded against ex-parte as he did not appear despite service. The sub-tenant paid arrears of rent on the first date of hearing to avoid the additional ground of ejectment, which tender was not accepted by the landlord as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. In the meantime the sub-tenant died and his legal representatives were brought on the record. The legal representatives of the sub-tenant pleaded in their written statement that Yog Raj was the direct tenant under the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month from Feb, 1961 and pleaded that Yog Raj had paid rent upto 15.5.1973 and the balance was tendered in Court. It was pleaded that Kishan Chand or his sons Bhola Nath had no concern with the demised premises. On the contest of the parties, issues were framed and after evidence was led, the learned Rent Controller by a well considered order dated 18.9.1979 order ejectment of the tenant and sub-tenant on the ground of sub-letting. It was found that the sub-tenant failed to prove his direct tenancy with the landlord as he was not able to produce any rent note or lease deed; failed to produce any rent receipt from February, 1961 till May, 1973, for a period of over 12 years, and that the tenant failed to produce the accounts to prove that he was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month to the landlord. It was also found that the sub-letting was clearly established because vide rent note Exhibit A. 1, the premises in dispute were let out by the landlord to Kishan Chand, tenant, and Yog Raj executed rent note Exhibit A. 2 in favour of Kishan Chand thereafter. It clearly amounted to sub-letting and since no permission of the landlord was taken, the sub-letting was authorised. Before the ejectment order was passed on 18.9.1979, on 28.8.1979, i.e. after four years and five months of the filing of the ejectment petition the sub-tenant filed an application before the Rent Controller, which is at page 65 of the record, to produce evidence relating to the statement of the landlord in case No. 79/1977 decided on 29.4.1978 wherein the landlord made a statement that Yog Raj was a direct tenant with regard to the shop in dispute. It was so stated in para 3 of the application. In para 4 of the application, it was stated that there were other statements of the landlord and Bhola Nath, tenant, in another case Bhola Nath v. Yog Raj decided by Shri Sukhdev Singh on 30.11.1974 which contained certain admissions having relevancy and bearing on the matters in controversy in the case in hand and a note was appended that certain copies of the statements of Bhola Nath and the landlord mentioned in para 4 above were attached therewith. The certified copy of the statement contained in para 3 was not attached. This application having been filed at a highly belated stage, was dismissed by the Rent Controller by order dated 28.8.1979. Against the ejectment order, the sub-tenant filed an appeal. In para 4 of the grounds of appeal, attack was made against the order of the Rent Controller and no prayer was made for the production of the statement of the landlord regarding which mention was made in para 3 of the application. When the case was taken up by the Appellate Authorities, by order dated 16.10.1981 it allowed the produced of documents marked 'A' and 'B' which were exhibited by the Appellate Authority as Exhibits 'A' 'B'. For the production of these documents there was somewhat discussion in the order. The Appellate Authority also allowed the production of the copy of the statement of the landlord dated 15.9.1976 in the case decided between the parties on 29.4.1978 and the same was marked as Exhibit'C'. Regarding this, there was no discussion as to why this was being permitted to be admitted into evidence specially when there was no ground of appeal in this behalf.
(2.) FINALLY , the appeal was allowed on 11.1.1982 and the order of ejectment was set aside primarily on the basis of document Exhibit 'C'. This is landlord's revision in this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that this revision deserves to success. Yog Raj, the alleged sub-tenant, admittedly was a direct tenant of the landlord with regard to the residential premises in the town of Amritsar. The landlord sought ejectment of the tenant from the residential premises which proceedings were instituted on 11.9.1973 as is clear from para 3 of the application filed by the tenant for production of additional evidence. In that case, the landlord is a alleged to have made statement on 15.9.1976, copy of which was sought to be produced by way of additional evidence which later on was marked by the Appellate Authority as Exhibit 'C'. There was another litigation between Bhola Nath and Yog Raj tenant of Bhola Nath. During those proceedings, the landlord and Bhola Nath made statements on 21.5.1974 in which Narain Dass Kapoor made statements partly on 13.12.1973 and the remaining on 21.5.1974 and Bhola Nath made statement on 14.1.1974. Those documents were also sought to be produced on the basis of averments made in para 4 of the application for additional evidence which were marked as 'A' and 'B' by the Rent Controller and were exhibited as Exhibits 'A' and 'B' by the Appellate Authority. In this case, the statement of Smt. Darshana wife of Yog Raj, the original sub-tenant, was recorded on 20.8.1979 and of Ved Parkash son of Yog Raj was also recorded on the same date. None of them relied on the documents Exhibits 'A', 'B' and 'C'. The statement of Narain Dass Kapoor landlord was partly recorded on 8.1.1979 and the remaining cross-examination was conducted on 10.1.1973. He was not cross-examined about his previous statement recorded in 1973-74 or in 1976. The certified copies of documents marked 'A' and 'B' show that their delivery was taken on 6.8.1979. At least that should have been relied upon in the statements of Smt. Darshana and Ved Parkash, the two legal representatives of Yog Raj, sub-tenant, who made the statement on 20.8.1979. A look at the certified copy of document Exhibit 'C' shows that the application for the supply of the copy was filed on 29.8.1979 and the copy was delivered on 5.9.1979. It shows that when the application for permission to lead additional evidence was filed, even the application for the supply of the copy had not been filed. These facts are being detailed for the reason that inspite of the facts that the copy Exhibits 'C' was ready on 5.9.1979, it was not produced immediately thereafter and appears to have been produced after the arguments were heard on 13.9.1979, and thereafter the copy was placed on the record because it bears the date of filing as 13.9.1979. Before the appellate authority, Narain Dass Kapoor, who ws about 90 years old at that time (on 26.11.1981) stated that after going through the statement Exhibits 'C' the portions marked 'A' to 'A' and 'B' to 'B' appear to have been wrongly interpreted and recorded. According to the cross-examination directed on him, he explained that where word 'also' is written he had stated 'not'. Portion 'A' to 'A' of the statement, which is at the sage end of the examination-in-chief, is as follow :- "It is signed by me. The respondent is also my tenant in another property which is a shop and the same is situated in chowk Phullanwala, Amritsar." Portion 'B' to 'B' of his statement is the first line of cross-examination after the aforesaid words (Portion 'A' to 'A'), which is as follows :- "The shop which is in possession of the respondent as I have recently said, bears numbers 2187/10."
(3.) I have gone through the statement Exhibit 'A' and 'B' and find that there is no admission of the landlord or Bhola Nath, the successor-in-interest of the alleged tenant which may go to show that Yog Raj was the direct tenant. This matter was put to the counsel for the legal representatives of Yog Raj. After going through these two documents, he has frankly conceded that in these two statements, there is no admission which may favour his clients. Accordingly, documents Exhibits 'A' and 'B' were wrongly used by the Appellate Authority in upsetting the well considered decision of the Rent Controller.;