Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 216 (PNJ)

J. S. Sethi v. Parkash Kaur

2003-02-05

HEMANT GUPTA

body2003
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The tenant aggrieved against the order of ejectment passed by the appellate authority has filed the present revision petition. The appellate authority ordered the ejectment on the ground that the premises have been sublet to M/s Ravindra Medical Store. 2. It has been pleaded by the landlady that the premises were let out to Dr. J.S. Sethi on 1.4.1974 at the monthly rent of Rs. 630/-. The landlady has sought the ejectment on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent since 1.2.1983 and that portion of the premises has been sublet to M/s Ravindra Medical Store without the written consent of the landlady. The respondent contested the case of the petitioner and stated that the premises were let out to M/s Ravinder Medical Store through Dr. J.S. Sethi. It is mentioned in the written statement that the photocopy of the rent note is attached. However, during the evidence the original rent note (Ex.R6) was produced by the tenant. 3. Learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition. However, the Appellate Court found that M/s Ravinder Medical Store came into existence for the first time on 1.5.1976 vide partnership deed Ex.A13. Even the licence for running M/s Ravinder Medical Store was taken on 28.2.1975. It was found that Dr. J.S. Sethi became partner in the firm of M/s Ravinder Medical Store for the first time on 14.8.1982 vide partnership deed (Ex.R32) and, thus, held that Dr. J.S. Sethi has sublet the part of the premises to M/s Ravinder Medical Store and is liable to be ejected. 4. I have heard the counsel for the respondent and with her assistance have gone through the record and found that there is no material illegality or irregularility in the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Court. It is to be noticed that while filing written statement, Dr. J.S. Sethi has mentioned that photostat copy of the rent note is attached as the original rent note is in possession of the landlord. It could not be disputed that Dr. J.S. Sethi was a family Doctor of the landlady and could have obtained the signatures of the landlady on the rent note in printed form in good faith. Had the rent note been executed by the landlady then it should have been with the landlady and not with the tenant. It could not be disputed that Dr. J.S. Sethi was a family Doctor of the landlady and could have obtained the signatures of the landlady on the rent note in printed form in good faith. Had the rent note been executed by the landlady then it should have been with the landlady and not with the tenant. A reading of the rent note shows that it has been executed by Dr. J.S. Sethi. Except the last line under his signatures, there is no reference of M/s Ravinder Medical Store. The licence for running Ravinder Medical Store was taken on 28.2.1975 and Dr. J.S, Sethi was inducted as a partner on 14.9.1982 vide Ex.R32. The first partnership deed in respect of M/s Ravinder Medical Store is Ex.A13, wherein Dr. J.S. Sethi is not shown as partner in the said firm. 5. It is apparent that exclusive possession of M/s Ravinder Medical Store over part of demised premises is proved. Dr. J.S. Sethi has become partner with M/s Ravinder Medical Store in the year 1982, thus parting of the possession in favour of M/s Ravinder Medical Store provides the ground of ejectment to landlady on account of subletting the premises. 6. Consequently, I find no illegality in the order and dismiss the present petition with no order as to costs.