- (1.) The whole question involved in this petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act), against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, dated March 3, 1975 is as not whether the petitioner was a tenant of two adjoining shops and sublet the of them to respondent Sarup Singh or the latter was a direct tenant under Harmohinder Singh, Respondent No. 1.
(2.) According to the landlord, respondent No. 1, he let out the shop to petitioner, Dr. Chaman Lal, vide rent note, Exhibit A-1 dated September, 16, 1959 at the rate of Rs. 100 per month. The tenancy was to start from October 1, 1959. As the petitioner had sublet a part of the shop to respondent No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 50 per month the landlord filed the present petition for ejectment of the petitioner and respondent No. 2. The petition was contested by Dr. Chaman Lal alone who pleaded that the premises in dispute were two separate shops and he took only one shop at the rate of Rs. 50 and other shop was let out to Sarup Singh at the same rate. It was further pleaded by the petitioner that the landlord insisted that he should stand surety for rent on account of the shop let out to Sarup Singh and under this pretext, the rent note was got executed respecting both the shops from him. The rent controller after recording evidence of the parties negatived the plea of the petitioner and ordered his ejectment vide judgment dated April 17, 1973. After having failed in appeal also, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 27 of 1973 this Court which was accepted and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller after recasting the issues which read as under :- 1. Whether the premises in dispute have been sublet by Chaman Lal tenant 2. Whether the plea of subletting is available to the landlord in view of the notice Exhibit R-2 and after the dismissal of the eviction application filed on the ground of non-payment of rent Both the issues were again answered against the tenant and the findings of the Rent Controller were confirmed, on appeal, by the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur vide judgment dated March 3, 1975, on the ground that oral evidence cannot be taken into consideration since there is a rent note executed by Dr. Chaman Lal in favour of Harmohinder Singh, the contents of which are not at all ambiguous. For this proposition of law, the learned Appellate Authority relied on Shambhu Datt and another v. Balwant Lal,1968 70 PunLR 790 wherein it was held that generally speaking evidence of surrounding circumstances would be admissible only where there was ambiguity or doubt as to the meaning of the terms of the document. Aggrieved by this order, the tenant, Dr. Chaman Lal, has come up in this petition under Section 15 of the Act.
(3.) Before dealing with the main case, I would dispose of the miscellaneous application filed after the arguments had concluded in the case and the judgment reserved for production of certified copies by way of additional evidence. The documents sought to be produced as additional evidence are copies of the application alleged to have been made by Dr. Chaman Lal against Sarup Singh, respondent No. 2, his tenant for his ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent and of the order dismissing the said application as withdrawn on the statement of the counsel for the petitioner Mr. Brahma Nand, Advocate, Hoshiarpur. By the production of these documents, the landlord intended to prove admission of the petitioner that it was he who had sublet the shop to Sarup Singh. The application was strongly opposed by the petitioner who in his affidavit stated that he never signed any such application nor ever instructed Mr. Brahma Nand, Advocate to file the same in the court of the Rent Controller.;