IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.R. No. 226 of 2003. Date of decision: 17.9.2009 Hardev Singh. …. Petitioner Versus Smt.Kailashwati Sood and ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No.1(a) Smt.Kailashwati Sood has expired. On her request, the name of Smt.Kailashwati Sood is deleted from the array of respondents. The estate of Smt.Sood is fully represented since her legal representative is already on record as legal representative No.1(b). This revision petition by the tenant is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority (II), Kangra at Dharamshala dated 6.6.2003 whereby he upheld the 2 order of eviction dated 13.7.2000 passed in favour of the landlord and against the tenant on the ground of non- payment of rent. There is no dispute qua the rate of rent etc. The only dispute is whether Hardev Singh was the tenant of the premises or the premises were rented out to M/s.Jawan Hire Purchase Private Limited. During the course of the proceedings, rent has been deposited and Challans show that the rent was deposited by M/s.Jawan Hire Purchase Private Limited. The petitioner in his petition alleged that the premises in question are residential premises and were rented out to Sh.Hardev Singh. Sh.Hardev Singh in his reply stated that the premises were rented out to a firm namely M/s.Jawan Hire Purchase Private Limited for running a business and, therefore, it is a necessary party to the proceedings. It was also stated that the premises in question were not residential premises but were being used for residential as well as business purpose. The learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that it is Hardev Singh alone who is the tenant of the premises in question and, therefore, passed an order of eviction against Hardev Singh. It held that the deposit made by M/s.Jawan Hire Purchase Private Limited could not be 3 deemed to be a deposit on behalf of Hardev Singh, and therefore, would not enure for the benefit of Hardev Singh. Hardev Singh filed an appeal in which he described himself to be the Managing Director of M/s.Jawan Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd., Palampur. This appeal has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority who has confirmed the finding of the learned Rent Controller that it is Hardev Singh in his personal capacity who is the tenant of the premises in question. I have heard Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner and Sh.Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the landlord/respondent. There are concurrent findings of both the authorities below that it was Hardev Singh who was the tenant in the premises in question. Ms.Dua has however gone through the entire record including the statement of Hardev Singh and submitted that there is nothing to show that Hardev Singh in his individual capacity was inducted as tenant and in fact the record reveals that the tenancy was in the name of M/s.Jawan Hire Purchase Private Limited. She has made reference to Ext.P/2 which is a register of house tax for the year ending 1996-97 in which M/s.Jawan Financer and residence, Palampur are shown 4 to be in occupation of Set No.1 of the building owned by the landlord. The landlord in his petition has clearly averred that the premises were rented out to Hardev Singh. Hardev Singh set up the plea that it was not he but M/s.Jawan Hire Purchase Private Limited which was the tenant. No specific issue was framed on this ground but parties were aware about the dispute and in fact the evidence shows that this was the main dispute between the parties. No tenancy agreement has been produced by any party. The respondent was the best person to produce record to show as to who was the tenant. To establish that M/s.Jawan Financer was the tenant, it was incumbent on Hardev Singh to show as to what was the status of M/s.Jawan Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. Deposit made by the M/s.Jawan Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. cannot be deemed to be a deposit made on behalf of Hardev Singh. In the Civil Revision filed before this Court, Hardev Singh has described himself as a Managing Director of M/s.Jawan Hire & Purchase Pvt. Ltd. which would indicate that it is a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. However, this is 5 contrary to the applications on record moved by Hardev Singh himself for permission to deposit the rent amount. He moved an application on 18.11.1999 in which he described himself to be the proprietor of M/s.Jawan Hire & Purchase Pvt. Ltd. Similarly in another application dated 7th April, 1999, he again described himself to be the proprietor of this firm. The same is the position in the third application dated 15th October, 1999. It is, therefore, clear that Hardev Singh himself is not clear as to what is the status of the alleged firm M/s.Jawan Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. This entity has also been described differently by Hardev Singh himself in various documents. In certain documents it is described as M/s.Jawan Hire Purchase Private Limited whereas in other documents it is described as M/s.Jawan Hire & Purchase Private Limited. When a tenant sets up a plea that not he but some other legal entity is the tenant then the tenant who is intrinsically connected with the said firm must lead adequate evidence in this behalf. Hardev Singh has failed to lead any cogent evidence. In view of above discussion, I find no error in the orders of both the learned Appellate courts below. The 6 revision petition being without merit is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. September 17, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge