J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of C.M. No. 34 of 1979 and C.R. No. 908 of 1979 as the question involved is the same in both the petitioners.
(2.) KRISHNA Devi was the owner of two shops in dispute i.e. shop No. 985-A in C.R. No. 34 of 1979 and shop No. 986 in C.R. No. 908 of 1979. She rented out both the shops to one Dalip Singh tenant vide rent note Ex, A dated 18.6.1968 in C.R. No. 34 of 1979 and vide rent note dated 30.7.1968 in C.R. No. 908 of 1979. She filed the present ejectment application is September, 1975 alleging that Dalip Singh tenant has sublet the premises to Dharam Chand in C.R. No. 34 of 1979 and to one Lachhi Ram in C.R. No. 908 of 1978. Thus the ejectment was sought inter alia, on the ground that the tenant has sublet the premises to the said tenants without the written consent of the landlady. Arrears of rent were also claimed in the ejectment application. However, the only ground that survived was of subletting. The petition was contested on the ground that Dalip Singh was never the tenant of the premises in dispute. The rent notes executed by him are fictitious and were a mere paper transaction. Dalip Singh is the man of the landlady and therefore he is supporting her case. According to the alleged sub-tenants, they were the direct tenants under Krishna Devi and have been making payment of rent to her husband Sant Lal. The Rent Controller found that since no receipt in respect of the payments of rent made by Dalip Singh has been produced and brought on the record, it is, therefore, clear that he was not a tenant from the very beginning. That being so, the question of subleting the premises did not arise. In view of that finding, both the applications were dismissed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority reversed the said finding of Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that Dharam Chand and Lachhi Ram (alleged sub-tenants) have failed to produce any receipt in respect of payment of rent and therefore, from the evidence on the records, it is quite evident that they are not the direct tenants as alleged by them, but were inducted by Dalip Singh tenant. In view of these findings, eviction orders were passed. Dissatisfied with the same, both the sub-tenants have filed these petitions.
(3.) SINCE both the authorities below have not discussed the evidence on the record, as such the relevant evidence in it is respect was gone into in this Court with the helpd of the learned counsel for the parties. In Dharam Chand's case i.e. C.R. No. 34/179. Dalip Singh, tenant has appeared as AWI. In his examination-in-chief, he has categorically stated that he occupied the premises in dispute for about 3 years and later on he sublet the same to Dharam Chand and Lachhi Ram respectively, Dharam Chand, sub-tenant appeared.... as RW6. According to him, he has been paying the rent to Sant Lal, the husband of the landlady Krishna Devi. Sant Lal appeared as AW4 as attorney for the landlady. He has categorically denied that he ever received any rent from said Dharam Chand or Lachhi Ram.;