In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2293 of 1991 Date of decision: March 02, 2009 Parveen Kumar and another ... Petitioners vs. Baldev Raj Jain and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ritesh Pandit, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J Baldev Raj Jain respondent/landlord (herein referred as 'the respondent') was awarded order of ejectment against the petitioner- tenant (herein referred as 'the tenant') as well as against the respondents No.2 to 11, by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide judgment dated 8.3.1989. The appeal preferred by Parveen Kumar sub-tenant was dismissed. The factual matrix of the case is that Baldev Raj Jain- landlord had rented out the property bearing No.B-IX-99 situated at Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana to M/s Kewal & Company w.e.f. 1.4.1970@ Rs.175/- per month under rent note dated 13.1.1970 executed by Kewal Krishan respondent No.3 on behalf of M/s Kewal & Company which was a partnership firm, having its partners namely Kewal Krishan, Banarsi Dass and Tarsem Lal. Tarsem Lal expired and was represented by respondents No.4 to 8. While alleging sub-letting, Baldev Raj Jain filed a petition for ejectment against the respondents on the ground of non payment of rent; subletting; as well as change of user. The respondents are the heirs of Banarsi Dass and Tarsem Lal. Parveen Kumar and Rakesh Kumar filed different written statements denying the subletting and change of user. They alleged Civil Revision No. 2293 of 1991 -2- *** that Kewal Krishan, Banarsi Dass and Tarsem Lal were the partners in M/s Kewal & Company. Latter on, they inducted the petitioners as partners w.e.f. 1.4.1983 on the basis of the partnership deed dated 14.7.1983, therefore, the petitioners are not subletties. At the same time, Shanti Devi, S.P. Oswal and Siri Pal i.e. respondents No.9 to 11 blatantly denied if they had any concern with the shop in dispute. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller, vide its order dated 6.11.1985 framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the tenant has sublet the demised premises to the respondents No.9 to 12 without written consent of the landlord? OPA 2. Whether the premises is being used by the tenant for the purpose other than for which it was let? OPA 3. Whether the respondent is guilty of such acts which are likely to diminish the value and utility of the demised premises? OPA 4. Whether the application is bad for partial ejectment? OPR 5. Relief. The Rent Controller allowed the application on the ground of sub-letting, whereas the issues No.2 and 3 were decided against Baldev Raj Jain respondent. However, issue No.4 was decided against the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. There is no dispute with the fact that Baldev Raj Jain had initially rented out the premises to M/s Kewal & Company on 13.4.1977 and the tenancy was to commence from 1.4.1977 vide Ex.A3 @ Rs.175/- per month. Rakesh Kumar and Parveen Kumar, who were admittedly working in the premises and were in possession of the demised premises had allegedly joined as partners vide partnership deed dated 14.7.1983 (Ex.AW4/1) and they had started working as partners w.e.f. 1.4.1983. So far as the partnership deed (Ex.AW4/1) is concerned, the same appears to be camouflage for projecting the petitioners as the partners, as a matter of fact, the evidence led on record amply establishes that the shop was sublet to the petitioners. First of all the said partnership deed is not been properly Civil Revision No. 2293 of 1991 -3- *** proved on record. Arun Kumar (RW3) had only identified the signatures of his father Arjan Dass on the said document Ex.RW3/1 dated 14.7.1983 but the said deed has not been firmly proved by examining any of the attesting witness or the scribe of the same. Nevertheless, the partnership deed Ex.RW3/1 reveals that the petitioners were shown as sleeping partners and they would not be responsible for the liabilities of the firm. Admittedly, the petitioners were not relatives of the respondents. Had it been so, then there was no necessity to introduce them as partners and it is also contrary to the factual position as lot of evidence has come on record that these are the petitioners who were running the entire business. Even the real landlords have not filed appeal or the revision petition in the court. The said partnership deed dated 14.7.1983 was never acted upon. It was not registered with the Registrar of Firms, Income Tax or Sales Tax Authorities. The accounts of M/s Kewal & Company and M/s S.P. Oswal and Hosiery have not been proved on record. The sub-tenancy has duly been proved by Baldev Raj Jain- landlord through a categoric statement and he has further proved that the petitioners are paying rent @ Rs.1500/- per month to M/s Kewal & Company. Gurbachan Singh (AW3) has also supported this fact. No rebuttal to the aforesaid evidence has been led by the petitioners or Kewal & Company by producing their account books. No bill books, receipts or purchase vouchers have been brought on record in order to establish that same were being issued by Banarsi Dass etc. the original partners of the firm. Mr. Parveen Talwar, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner by the Rent Controller who inspected the demised premises after visiting the spot on 25.2.1985 and vide his report Ex.A-1 observed that at the time of inspection Siri Pal father of the petitioners was transacting business at the spot. Krishan Lal (AW6) had accompanied the Local Commissioner and he took the photographs Ex.AW6/1 to Ex.AW6/16. He also proved the negatives thereof as Ex.AW6/17 to Ex.AW6/32, which also indicate that Siri Pal was transacting the business at that time. All this goes to show that the disputed premises was not in occupation of the original tenant but the same were in possession of the sublettees. The partnership deed having not been proved according to law is of no consequence and is hardly sufficient to prove the partnership of the petitioners with M/s Kewal Civil Revision No. 2293 of 1991 -4- *** & Company. Kewal Krishan has also made admission regarding factual position. The learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have duly observed that the partnership deed dated 14.7.1983 is a clever contrivance to award eviction of the tenant and sub-tenant, whereas report dated 25.2.1985 (Ex.A-1) made by the Local Commissioner, photographs, as well as statement of Baldev Raj Jain duly prove the subtenancy made by Kewal & Company in favour of the petitioners. Thus, without differing with the findings returned by both the courts below, I have no option but to dismiss the petition. Ordered accordingly. March 02, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge