- (1.) ONE Pritam Dass who was owner of the property in dispute mortgaged the same to Gurbux Singh, petitioner vide mortgage deed Ex. A. 1. Gurbux Singh thereafter inducted Sardara Singh S. as a tenant in the premises in dispute vide rent note Ex. A. 2. It appears that Sardara Singh further sublet the premises in dispute to Karam Chand. Gurbux Singh thereafter filed an ejectment application before the Rent Controller, Jalandhar against the tenant and Karam Chand, Sub tenant seeking their eviction on the ground of sub letting. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 1? OPA 2) Whether respondent No. 1 has sub let the property to respondent No. 2? OPA 3) If issue No. 1 is not proved, whether petitioner has locus standi to file the petition? OPA 4) Whether the plan attached is correct OPR 5) Relief. The Rent Controller found on a consideration of the file that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between Gurbux Singh and Sardara Singh. On issue No. 2 the Rent Controller also found in favour of the landlord petitioner holding that the property in dispute had been sublet to Karam Chand. The ejectment application was accordingly allowed vide orders dated 20th July, 1979. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the sub tenant Karam Chand filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Only two points were raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Firstly that the rent note could not be taken into account for determining the relationship inter se between Gurbux Singh and Sardara Singh, and, secondly, that the creation of a tenancy vide Ext. A 2 was in fact a fictitious transaction in as much that the possession of the mortgaged property had never been delivered to Gurbax Singh by the landlord. On the second point the appellant authority again found against the appellant but on the question of admissibility of Ext. A 2 i. e. the lease deed held in his favour as the aforesaid document had not been registered as required by Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and and as such could not be taken note off and if this document was taken off the file, there was no evidence to show that there was relationship of land lord and tenant between Gurbux Singh and Sardara Singh. On this process of reasoning, the appeal of the petitioner Karam Chand was allowed and the ejectment application dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the present revision petition has been filed by Gurbux Singh, the mortgagee in possession.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the finding of the appellate Court that the lease deed Ext. A. 2 could not be looked into being unregistered and as such, there was no evidence to show the relationship of landlord the tenant between Gurbax Singh and Sardara Singh, was erroneous, in as much that the relationship between them could be proved from other evidence as well, as Karam Chand, respondent had claimed ownership of the premises in dispute and this plea has been negatived by the authority below. I find force in this submission of the learned counsel. It has to be noted that the lease deed Ext. A 2 was executed between Gurbax Singh and Sardara Singh and the question of handing over the possession to Karam Chand as sub tenant, which was point in issue between the parties, was not even remotely dealt with. It is the conceded case that the possession had been handed over by Gurbux Singh in terms of the mortgage deed and on facts it has been found that Karam Chand had been inducted as a sub tenant by Sardara Singh. It is therefore, clear that the finding of the appellate authority that the lease deed Ext. A2 could not be looked into-for any purpose is totally unwarranted and not relevant at all for determing the relationship between the contesting parties. Once it has been found on a question of fact that the tenancy and sub tenancy had been created, the lease deed Ext. A 2 in any case would be redundant.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed and the order of the appellate Court is set aside. It is also clear that basically it was Karam Chand who fought the litigation before the Courts below and even before this Court, he alone is represented by counsel. However, the tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises provided he deposits the entire arrears of rent and the advance rent for the period of three months and also files an undertaking before the Rent Controller to effect that he shall vacate the premises aforesaid, within one month. No costs.;