Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 863 (PNJ)

Balbir Singh v. Mohinder Singh Ahluwalia

2001-08-16

R.L.ANAND

body2001
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. This is a Civil Revision No. 2548 of 1982 filed by Balbir Singh son of Shri Kirpa Singh against Mohinder Singh Ahluwalia and Sajjan Singh, Advocate, and it has been directed against the order dated 8.6.1982, passed by the appellate authority, Patiala, who, allowed the appeal of Shri Sajjan Singh, Advocate, under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and dismissed the petition under Section 13 of the said Act filed by Shri Balbir Singh against Shri Mohinder Singh Ahluwalia and Shri Sajjan Singh. 2. During the pendency of this revision, Shri Balbir Singh has also expired on 20.1.1997. Though an application was made on behalf of the respondents for the abatement of the revision but by virtue of the amendment brought under Order 22 by the High Court, this revision survives and it will be examined whether the order of the appellate authority is justified or not. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Balbir deceased filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against Shri Mohinder Singh Ahluwalia and Sajjan Singh on 21.4.1973 and it was alleged by Shri Balbir Singh deceased that Mohinder Singh Ahluwalia, respondent No. 1, took the premises i.e. House No. 1612/1, situated at Purana Gadda Khanna, Patiala on a monthly rent of Rs. 130/- and Mohinder Singh Ahluwalia also executed a rent note dated 1.2.1973. It was also alleged by Shri Balbir Singh that respondent No. 1 paid rent up to June 1973 but he is in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2730/- w.e.f. 1.7.1973 to 31.3.1975. It was also alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 1, Shri Mohinder Singh Ahluwalia, has sublet the premises to respondent No. 2 Shri Sajjan Singh without his consent. Before filing the ejectment application notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was given. Thus, the ejectment of respondents No. 1 and 2 was sought on the grounds of the non-payment of rent and sub-letting. 4. Notice of the Rent petition was given to the respondents. Shri Mohinder Singh Ahluwalia, respondent No. 1, filed the written statement contending that he was not in arrears of rent. He admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but denied the factum of the sub-tenancy. 4. Notice of the Rent petition was given to the respondents. Shri Mohinder Singh Ahluwalia, respondent No. 1, filed the written statement contending that he was not in arrears of rent. He admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but denied the factum of the sub-tenancy. Rather he stated that Shri Sajjan Singh is in possession of premises with the consent of Shri Balbir Singh. 5. Sajjan Singh, respondent No. 2, filed separate written statement and he took the stand that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between Shri Balbir Singh and Shri Mohinder Singh. The alleged rent note is frivolous, collusive and it has been executed to defeat the interest of true owner and occupier. It was also pleaded by respondent No. 2 that the ejectment application is not maintainable as he is not the sub-tenant of respondent No. 1. In fact Smt. Harinder Kaur d/o Shri Nand Singh is the owner of the property. She is the necessary party. 6. From the aforesaid averments of the parties the learned Addl. Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent No. 1 has paid the arrears of rent, claimed by the petitioner ? OPR 2. Whether the sub-letting of tenancy premises by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 was with the consent of the petitioner ? OPR 3. Whether the applicant validly terminated the tenancy of the respondent in respect of the premises in dispute ? OPA 4. Whether the instant petition instituted collusively by the petitioner ? OPR-2. 5. Relief. The parties led evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of the proceedings, issue No. 1 was decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. Issue No. 2 was also decided against the respondents. Issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the petitioner. Issue No. 4 was decided against respondent No. 2 and finally the ejectment petition was allowed by the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Patiala vide his order dated 13.6.1980 and the grounds of allowing the petition are contained in paras No. 7 to 14 of the said order, which are reproduced as under :- "7. Respondent No. 1, in the written reply, contended that he had paid the entire rent due to the petitioner. He admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner. Respondent No. 1, in the written reply, contended that he had paid the entire rent due to the petitioner. He admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner. While appeared as RW2 he changed his position and stated that the possession of the premises by Balbir Singh- petitioner was not delivered to him. Though he admitted the execution of the rent deed in favour of the petitioner, but denied the delivery of possession. On one hand, in his written reply, the relationship was admitted but on the other while appearing in Court, the relationship was denied. His statement to the effect that the possession of the premises was not delivered to him, is against his own pleadings, extraneous and not relevant to the present issue. Such evidence can not be looked into and respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed to change his position. He has not said a word about the payment of rent as pleaded in his written reply. 8. On the other hand, the petitioner has produced voluminous evidence, oral as well as documentary, to prove that he is the landlord of the house in dispute and the same was let out to Mohinder Singh on 1.2.1973. Original rent deed Ex.A.1 has been produced, the execution of which has been admitted by Mohinder Singh, respondent No. 1, Gurbachan Singh (AW2) a marginal witness of the rent note has not also been produced. Naranjan Singh (AW3) brother of Mohinder Singh, has stated that the house belongs to Balbir Singh, petitioner. Bahadur Singh (AW4) an official of the office of the Estate Officer, proved letter EX.AW4/1 and bills Exs. AW4/2 to Ex.AW4/14, pertaining to the year 1958-59. These bills are signed by Balbir Singh, petitioner showing that he has been receiving rent for the house in dispute from the office of the Estate Officer. The house was requisitioned vide order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 4.11.1956. 9. Not only that, the petitioner has produced rent deed Ex.AW5/1 and Ex.AW/2 executed by Ajmer Singh and Harjit Singh, respectively in his favour. He got produced bill Ex.PA showing flat rate water-taxes card payment issued by the Committee, Patiala and letters Ex.PB and Ex.PC from AW1 Jai Dial, who was once a tenant in this house under Balbir Singh. 10. Not only that, the petitioner has produced rent deed Ex.AW5/1 and Ex.AW/2 executed by Ajmer Singh and Harjit Singh, respectively in his favour. He got produced bill Ex.PA showing flat rate water-taxes card payment issued by the Committee, Patiala and letters Ex.PB and Ex.PC from AW1 Jai Dial, who was once a tenant in this house under Balbir Singh. 10. Undoubtedly, this Court is not to decide the question of title, regarding the house in dispute, yet all the documents referred above, clearly goes to show that Balbir Singh has been letting out this house to different persons. His control over the property is established. This evidence is relevant to prove that Balbir Singh had the capacity as landlord to let out the house of Mohinder Singh respondent No. 1 in the face of admission on the part of the Mohinder Singh that he executed the rent note in favour of Balbir Singh, prove beyond any suspicion that the relationship came into being between Balbir Singh Mohinder Singh as landlord and tenant. Admission on the part of the Mohinder Singh in his cross-examination that his wife remained admitted in the hospital in February, 1973, and they had to stay at Patiala, for seven to eight months, clearly proves that in 1973 from February onwards, they stayed at Patiala. He has failed to mention the premises other than the disputed one, where he may have stayed along with his wife, during that period. I, therefore, find that there was relationship of landlord and tenant, between Balbir Singh and Mohinder Singh, respondent. 11. According to Balbir Singh, AW5 Mohinder Singh was in arrears of rent from 1.7.1973 to 31.3.1975, amounting to Rs. 2730/-. In view of the facts that there is no evidence on the side of respondent No. 1 showing that he has paid the entire rent due as pleaded in the written reply, and the statement of AW5 that was in arrears amounting to Rs. 2730/-, I hold that respondent No. 1 has not paid the arrears of rent and decide the issue against him (respondent No. 1) Issue No. II 12. Respondent No. 1 pleaded that he has sub-let the premises with the consent of the petitioner. Again he led no evidence on this issue, rather denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. 2730/-, I hold that respondent No. 1 has not paid the arrears of rent and decide the issue against him (respondent No. 1) Issue No. II 12. Respondent No. 1 pleaded that he has sub-let the premises with the consent of the petitioner. Again he led no evidence on this issue, rather denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. He has admitted the possession of respondent No. 2 in the house for the last 6-7 years but denied that he inducted him as sub tenant, in the property. On the other hand, Naranjan Singh (AW3), Balbir Singh (AW5) stated that respondent No. 2 is in the possession of the house for the last 6-7 years. AW5 further stated that respondent No. 2 had been inducted as sub-tenant by respondent No. 1. This proves that respondent No. 1 sub let the premises without the consent of the petitioner. I decide this issue against the respondent. Issue No. III 13. Copy of the notice Ex.AW5/7, postal receipt Ex.AW5/8 and acknowledgement due Ex.AW5/9, have been produced by Balbir Singh petitioner. The notice is dated 17.3.1975, by which the tenancy of Mohinder Singh was terminated and petition for ejectment was filed on 21.4.1975. The issue stands established in favour of the applicant. Issue No. IV 14. The main contention of respondent No. 2 was that the petition has been instituted collusively by the petitioner. There is no evidence on this issue, except the reliance has been placed on conjectures and inferences. The very fact that Mohinder Singh while appeared in Court, as his own witness changed his previous position taken up in the written reply, to support the claim of the respondent No. 2, go to show that the petition has not been filed in collusion with respondent No. 1. His denial about the relationship of landlord and tenant, the delivery of possession to him by Balbir Singh clearly indicates that he was siding with respondent No. 2. I, therefore, decide this issue against respondent No. 2. 7. His denial about the relationship of landlord and tenant, the delivery of possession to him by Balbir Singh clearly indicates that he was siding with respondent No. 2. I, therefore, decide this issue against respondent No. 2. 7. Not satisfied with the order of the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Sajjan Singh filed an appeal under Section 15 of the said Act before the appellate authority, Patiala who reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed and ejectment petition by holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Shri Balbir Singh and Shri Mohinder Singh and that Mohinder Singh never occupied the premises in question. The rent note relied upon by the petitioner is a collusive document between Balbir Singh and Mohinder Singh. The appellate authority also held that Shri Mohinder Singh never inducted Shri Sajjan Singh as a sub-tenant and in these circumstances the petition was liable to be dismissed. 8. The grounds of reversal are contained in paras No. 7 to 13 of the order dated 8.6.1982 which are also reproduced as follows :- "7. I have gone through the record of the case and have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length. Issues No. 1, 2 and 4 These are inter-connected issues and will be disposed of together. 8. Respondent No. 1s allegations are that on 1.2.1973 he leased out the disputed house to respondent No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month and the respondent No. 2 has not paid the arrears of rent for the period from 1.7.1973 to 31.3.1975 and has sub-let it to the appellant without his consent. In support of these allegations, he has examined Jai Dial Sharma AW1, Gurbachan Singh AW2, Niranjan Singh AW3, Bahadur Singh AW4 and himself as AW5. AW1 has stated that he occupied the disputed house as a tenant under respondent No. 1 for the period from November, 1968 to January, 1973 and he used to receive his letters on the address of this house and used to pay the water charges. He has produced the letters Ex.PB and Ex.PC. AW2 is the attesting witness of the rent note dated 1.2.1973 Ex. A/1 which is alleged to have been executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1 in respect of the disputed house. AW3 is the brother of Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2. He has produced the letters Ex.PB and Ex.PC. AW2 is the attesting witness of the rent note dated 1.2.1973 Ex. A/1 which is alleged to have been executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1 in respect of the disputed house. AW3 is the brother of Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2. He has stated that Balbir Singh respondent No. 1 was in possession of the disputed house for the last 40 years and he used to rent it out to different persons. In his cross- examination, he has admitted that Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2 never resided in the disputed house. AW4 has stated that the letter Ex.AW4/1 is signed by the Estate Officer and that the bills Ex.AW4/2 to 14 were received in the office of Estate Officer, Patiala. AW5 is the respondent No. 1 himself. He has supported on oath the allegation made by him in his ejectment application. In addition, he has produced the rent notes Ex.AW5/1 and 2 which were allegedly executed by Ajmer Singh and Harjit Singh respectively in his favour in respect of the disputed house. He has also produced the documents Ex.AW5/3, 4 and 5 which are regarding acquisition of the disputed house. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has three brothers namely Jagnandan Singh, Nand Singh, Babu Singh alias Ranjit Singh and Jai Singh and that Harinder Kaur is the daughter of aforesaid Nand Singh and Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2 and Niranjan Singh AW3 are the sons of aforesaid Babu Singh. He has further admitted that he and his three brothers had ancestral property and the disputed house was also ancestral and that Nand Singh had filed a suit for partition of the joint property which was decreed in his favour and the appeal is pending in the Honble High Court and further that the disputed house was joint at the time of the filing of the suit by Nand Singh. In the end, he has admitted that Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2 is employed at Chandigarh and is residing for the last 10/12 years and his wife mis residing at village Naraingarh Chhanna. 9. In rebuttal, the appellant has himself entered into the witness box as RW1 and has examined Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2 as RW2. In the end, he has admitted that Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2 is employed at Chandigarh and is residing for the last 10/12 years and his wife mis residing at village Naraingarh Chhanna. 9. In rebuttal, the appellant has himself entered into the witness box as RW1 and has examined Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2 as RW2. RW2 has admitted that he was never put in possession of the disputed house by Balbir Singh respondent No. 1 and further that he never resided in it. 10. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Rent Controller, has decided issues No. 1 and 2 against the respondent No. 2 and issue No. 4 against the appellant and has held that the respondent No. 2 took the disputed house on rent from respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month and has not paid the arrears of rent for the period 1.7.1973 to 31.3.1975 and has sub-let it to the appellant without the consent of respondent No. 1 and that on these grounds the appellant and respondent No. 2 are liable to be evicted from the disputed house. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of the learned Rent Controller on all these issues. He has argued that the rent note Ex.A/1 alleged to have been executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1 is a sham and paper transaction and has been fabricated in order to evict the appellant. This argument seems to be correct from the evidence on the file. My opinion is based on the following grounds:- (a) The respondent No. 1 has led voluminous evidence to prove that he was the owner of the disputed house at the time he leased it out to respondent No. 2. We are not concerned in the application regarding his ownership as in order to succeed the respondent No. 1 is to prove that he leased it out to respondent No. 2 and the latter sub-let it to the appellant. But even the evidence led by the respondent No. 1 regarding his ownership is insufficient to prove his title. We are not concerned in the application regarding his ownership as in order to succeed the respondent No. 1 is to prove that he leased it out to respondent No. 2 and the latter sub-let it to the appellant. But even the evidence led by the respondent No. 1 regarding his ownership is insufficient to prove his title. The first witness examined by him is Jai Dial Sharma AW1 who has stated that he remained in possession of the disputed house as a tenant under respondent No. 1 for the period November, 1968 to January, 1973 and he received the letters on the address of this house. But no reliance can be placed on his statement as no rent note has been produced by respondent No. 1 which was executed in his favour by AW1 and in the letters Ex.PB and Ex.PC produced by AW1 the house number has been over-written and altered. AW1 has further stated that he got an electric connection at the address of the disputed house, but strangely enough the sanction of that electric connection has not been got produced. Under these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on his statement. The other type of the evidence led by the respondent No. 1 regarding his ownership are the bills which were submitted by him for collection of the rent as the disputed house was once requisitioned. Even if it be assumed for argument sake that the respondent No. 1 received the rent from the requisiting authorities, even then it does not prove his exclusive ownership as he himself has admitted in his cross-examination that he and his three brothers owned joint property and the disputed house was jointly owned by them and Nand Singh had filed suit for the partition of that property which is still pending in the Honble High Court. The respondent No. 1 has produced the rent notes Exs.AW5/1 and 2 which were allegedly executed in his favour by Ajmer Singh and Hardit Singh respectively in respect of the disputed house. But no reliance can be placed on these rent notes as neither Ajmer singh and nor Hardit Singh have been examined to prove that these rent notes were executed by them in favour of respondent No. 1. But no reliance can be placed on these rent notes as neither Ajmer singh and nor Hardit Singh have been examined to prove that these rent notes were executed by them in favour of respondent No. 1. Under these circumstances, there is no evidence on the file to conclusively prove that the respondent No. 1 was the exclusive owner of the disputed house. (b) Now I shall discuss about the rent note Ex.A/1 which is alleged to have been executed by Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2 in favour of Balbir Singh respondent No. 1 and attested by Gurbex Singh AW2. These are undisputed facts between the parties that Balbir Singh respondent No. 1 had three brothers namely Jagnandan alias Nand Singh, Babu Singh and Jai Singh and that Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2 and Niranjan Singh AW3 are the sons of aforesaid Babu Singh and Harinder Kaur wife of the appellant is the daughter of Nand Singh aforesaid. Harinder Kaur was previously married to some other person and on the death of her first husband she entered into second marriage with the appellant some time in the year 1970. There is no recital in the rent note Ex.A/1 that Balbir Singh respondent No. 1 put Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2 in possession of the disputed house. Niranjan Singh Aw 3 who is the nephew of Balbir Singh respondent No. 1 and was examined by him, has stated in cross- examination that Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2 never resided in the disputed house. Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2 was examined by the appellant as RW2. He has also stated that he never resided in the disputed house. Balbir Singh respondent No. 1 as AW5 has admitted in his cross-examination that Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2 is posted in the Government Press, Chandigarh and is residing for the last 10/12 years at Chandigarh and his wife is residing in village Naraingarh Chhanna. There is thus no evidence to conclusively prove that Mohinder Singh ever entered into possession of the disputed house as a tenant under Balbir Singh respondent No. 1 on the basis of rent note Ex.A/1. Balbir Singh respondent No. 1 has further admitted in his cross-examination that Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2 is the owner of 1/6th share in the property held by them which includes the disputed house. Balbir Singh respondent No. 1 has further admitted in his cross-examination that Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2 is the owner of 1/6th share in the property held by them which includes the disputed house. It cannot be believed under any set of circumstances that a co-sharer in respect of the property which is jointly owned by him. Under these circumstances, it seems that the rent note Ex.A/2 is a paper and sham transaction and has been fabricated by the respondents in order to evict the appellant from the disputed house who is in its possession through his wife Harinder Kaur since the year 1970. 12. In view of the discussion above, the findings of the learned Rent Controller on all these issues are incorrect and are hereby set aside. It is held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent No. 1 and 2 and the appellant is not a sub-tenant and the present application has been filed collusively to evict the appellant. The issues are decided accordingly. Issue No. 3 13. This issue has been decided by the learned Rent Controller in favour of respondent No. 1, the findings of the learned Rent Controller have not been assailed by the parties and as such the same are hereby affirmed." 9. This time Shri Balbir Singh was not satisfied with the finding of the appellate authority and he filed the present revision which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Shri R.K. Aggarwal, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Even after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner ex parte, I am of the opinion that this revision must fail as it is not established on the record that there was any genuine relationship of landlord and tenant between Shri Balbir Singh and Shri Mohinder Singh. 10. The case set up by the petitioner is that the premises in question was let out to Shri Mohinder Singh on a monthly rent of Rs. 130/- per month under a rent note dated 1.2.1973. In the rent petition, it is not been averred by the landlord that from which date Shri Mohinder Singh allegedly inducted Shri Sajjan Singh as sub-tenant. The allegations are very vague. 130/- per month under a rent note dated 1.2.1973. In the rent petition, it is not been averred by the landlord that from which date Shri Mohinder Singh allegedly inducted Shri Sajjan Singh as sub-tenant. The allegations are very vague. In these circumstances, it has to be seen whether Shri Mohinder Singh was never inducted as a tenant by Shri Balbir Singh and that whether the Shri Mohinder Singh further sublet the premises to Shri Sajjan Singh. The landlord has to stand on his own legs. 11. Let us see what is the evidence which has been examined by the landlord. AW1 is Shri Jai Dayal Sharma. According to him, he occupied the premises from November 1968 to January 1973. Thus, statement of Shri Jai Dial Sharma will not advance the case of the petitioner. Assuming for the sake of argument that Shri Jai Dial Sharma took the premises on rent from Shri Balbir Singh yet the point for determination is whether Shri Balbir Singh ever inducted Shri Mohinder Singh as a tenant and whether Shri Mohinder Singh further inducted Shri Sajjan Singh respondent as a sub-tenant. AW-2 is an attesting witness of the rent note dated 1.2.1973 Ex.A.1. AW-3 is the brother of Shri Mohinder Singh who deposed that Shri Balbir Singh was in possession of the disputed house for the last about 40 years and he used to rent it out to several persons but this witness Shri Niranjan Singh admitted in the cross-examination that Shri Mohinder Singh never resided in the disputed house. He is the real brother of Shri Mohinder Singh. He further admitted that Shri Sajjan Singh is residing in this house for the last 6-7 years, on the day when his statement was recorded on 16.8.1979, Niranjan Singh also admits in his examination-in- chief that he does not know who gave the possession to him (Shri Sajjan Singh). Once it is established that Shri Mohinder Singh the so-called tenant never occupied the property under the rent note dated 1.2.1973, in these circumstances, it falsifies the plea of the so- called landlord that Shri Mohinder Singh is in arrears of rent with effect from 1.4.1975. AW-5 is Balbir Singh. Once it is established that Shri Mohinder Singh the so-called tenant never occupied the property under the rent note dated 1.2.1973, in these circumstances, it falsifies the plea of the so- called landlord that Shri Mohinder Singh is in arrears of rent with effect from 1.4.1975. AW-5 is Balbir Singh. This witness in the cross-examination admitted that he has three brothers namely Jagnandan Singh alias Nand Singh, Babu Singh alias Ranjit Singh and Jai Singh and that Smt. Harinder Kaur is the daughter of aforesaid Nand Singh and Mohinder Singh respondent No. 2 and Niranjan Singh are the sons of Shri Babu Singh. He further admitted that he and his three bothers had ancestral property and the disputed house was also ancestral. Further Shri Nand Singh had filed a suit for partition of the joint property which was decreed and the appeal was pending. It was also admitted by Shri Balbir Singh that disputed house was joint at the time of the filing of the suit. He also admitted that Shri Mohinder Singh the so-called tenant was employed at Chandigarh and he was residing there for the last 10-12 years and his wife is residing in village Naraingarh Chhanna. Thus, there is no difficulty in concluding that the main plank of the case of the landlord is that rent note Ex.A.1 was a sham document executed by Shri Mohinder Singh in favour of Shri Balbir Singh just to create a relationship of landlord and tenant but infact Shri Mohinder Singh never entered into the possession of the property as a tenant nor he ever occupied the same in that capacity. The position of the law is well settled that it is always open to the party to the proceedings to show that document is a sham transaction just to effect the rights of a third person. This rule is an exception to the general rule that oral evidence cannot be led against the contents of the document. Shri Mohinder Singh has also been examined by Shri Sajjan and he has admitted that he was never put in possession of the disputed house by Shri Balbir Singh and that he never resided in this house. If this is the situation, it will mean that no relationship of landlord and tenant had ever been created between Shri Balbir Singh and Mohinder Singh. If this is the situation, it will mean that no relationship of landlord and tenant had ever been created between Shri Balbir Singh and Mohinder Singh. We are not bothered in what capacity Shri Sajjan Singh is sitting in the premises but definitely he is not occupying the premises as a sub-tenant of Shri Mohinder Singh. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that Shri Balbir Singh is one of the co-sharers, his remedy lies somewhere else to file a suit for possession against a person who is either in permissive possession or who is occupying the premises with the consent of a co-sharer but definitely this Court is of the opinion that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between Shri Balbir Singh and Shri Mohinder Singh. The rent note Ex.A.1 which is the main plank of the case of the petitioner would even show that there is no recital in the said document that Shri Balbir Singh ever put Shri Mohinder Singh into possession of the premises. Rather it has been admitted by Shri Balbir Singh that Shri Mohinder Singh is the owner to the extent of 1/6th share in the property held by them which includes the disputed house. In these circumstances, it is difficult for us to believe that Shri Mohinder Singh executed a rent note in the capacity of a tenant when he himself is a co-sharer in the property in question. Even from the trend of the written statement of Shri Mohinder Singh, it is clear that he had connived with Shri Balbir Singh so as to throw out Shri Sajjan Singh from the premises. Thus, it is concluded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Shri Mohinder Singh and Shri Balbir Singh and in these circumstances, there was no privity binding Shri Mohinder Singh to pay the rent with effect from 1.4.1975. Once it is held that Shri Mohinder Singh was never inducted as a tenant and that his so called tenancy was a farce then there is no difficulty in holding that Shri Mohinder Singh never inducted Shri Sajjan Singh as sub tenant in the property. Once it is held that Shri Mohinder Singh was never inducted as a tenant and that his so called tenancy was a farce then there is no difficulty in holding that Shri Mohinder Singh never inducted Shri Sajjan Singh as sub tenant in the property. As I stated above that the petition was filed by Shri Balbir Singh in collusion with Shri Mohinder Singh to the detrimental of the Shri Sajjan Singh who is occupying the property either in his own right or with the consent of a co- owner but definitely he was not a sub-tenant of Shri Mohinder Singh. Thus, I affirm the findings of the appellate authority and dismiss this revision with no order as to costs.