Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1246 (PNJ)

Tek Chand v. Rattan Lal

2002-11-20

HEMANT GUPTA

body2002
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The present petition is by the landlady aggrieved against the dismissal of ejectment petition by both the Courts below. 2. The landlord has sought ejectment on the ground that the tenant i.e. Rattan Lal has not paid the arrears of rent with effect from 1.9.1978 and that he has sub-letted the premises in favour of firm Rattan Lal Ram Niwas and to Ram Niwas i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is also contended that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and he wanted to reconstruct the same. 3. On behalf of the respondent, it is contended that the tenant firm Rattan Lal Ram Niwas was the tenant and was paying rent regularly to the petitioner. It is further alleged that petitioner has filed earlier ejectment petition against Rattan Lal wherein tenant has stated that the tenancy is, in fact, in favour of Rattan Lal Ram Niwas. However, landlord has withdrawn the petition without getting any adjudication on such question and thus the landlord is precluded from disputing the relationship in subsequent ejectment petition. 4. The petitioner has relied upon document Ex.A3 judgment in a suit filed by respondent No. 2-Rattan Lal Ram Niwas for permanent injunction restraining the landlord in interfering with the possession of the said plaintiff. However, the said suit was dismissed but finding was given under issue No. 1 that Rattan Lal is the tenant and not the firm. It is the case of the landlord that the said judgment will operate as resjudicata wherein it has been held that it is individual Rattan Lal and not the firm is tenant. 5. The Courts below primarily relied upon the factum of withdrawl of ejectment petition by the landlord wherein the tenant Rattan Lal has disputed tenancy in favour of a individual. The Courts below rejected the argument of the landlord wherein he has alleged that the judgment and decree in the suit for permanent injunction shall operate as resjudicata. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the opinion that even assuming that Rattan Lal is tenant still the landlord has failed to prove subletting as Rattan Lal Ram Niwas is nothing but a joint Hindu family in the name of Rattan Lal Ram Niwas and Ram Niwas is his son. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the opinion that even assuming that Rattan Lal is tenant still the landlord has failed to prove subletting as Rattan Lal Ram Niwas is nothing but a joint Hindu family in the name of Rattan Lal Ram Niwas and Ram Niwas is his son. Rattan Lal is the tenant admitted by the landlord, however, the sub tenancy in favour of Rattan Lal Ram Niwas is alleged and that Rattan Lal has vacated the premises and it is Ram Niwas i.e. son of Rattan Lal who is in possession. However, oral evidence was led by the parties before the Courts below. Keeping in view the evidence led by the parties and the facts on record Rattan Lal Ram Niwas is either partnership of firm consisting of Rattan Lal Ram Niwas or in view of the stand of the tenant a joint Hindu family. In either of the cases, subletting as a ground of ejectment is not made. Rattan Lal appeared as RW2 and deposed that he is in possession of the building. In view of the fact that parting of possession of Rattan Lal is not proved. I do not find any illegality or irregularity recorded by the Courts below that there is no sub letting by Rattan Lal. 7. There is concurrent finding of fact in respect of the condition of the building holding that the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The case of the petitioner is only based upon that the building is old. The age of building is not the criteria to hold that it is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Consequently, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Petition is dismissed.