IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6146 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 9th December, 2008 Suresh Chand … Petitioner Versus Rajender and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) A rent note was executed on 31st May, 1979 and Mahadev Parsad had rented out the shop for three months at the rate of Rs.141/- per month to Niranjan Lal son of Sh.Ram Kirpal. Mahadev Parsad died and after his death, Niranjan Lal started paying rent to the elder brother of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.141/- per month. Tenant also used to pay Rs.500/- per annum on account of some oral settlement with the elder brother of the petitioner namely Puran Chand. In 1992, due to family settlement, the shop fell to the share of Rajender Kumar and Manoj Kumar, who had filed the eviction petition. In which, the tenant, on the ground of sub-letting, has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. It is stated that a petition was filed by the petitioners for enhancement and determination of fair rent and the fair rent of the shop was fixed as Rs.279/- per month. Eviction petition was filed on two grounds: (i) Non-payment of rent; (ii) Sub-letting of shop by Niranjan Lal to Tek Chand. Civil Revision No.6146 of 2008 (O&M) Two courts below have held that since the arrears of rent have been paid, therefore, ground of non-payment of rent is not available to the landlord. On the ground of sub-letting, they noticed the averments made by the tenant in the written statement that Tek Chand, sub-tenant had entered into a partnership agreement with Niranjan Lal vide partnership agreement (Ex.RW-1/B) dated 27th March, 1998 and Tek Chand used to manage the shop as a partner. Niranjan Lal died in year 2003. The present eviction petition was filed in year 1999. His son Suresh filed an application to be impleaded as legal representative of Niranjan Lal as one son Pushkarmal Garg was residing at Delhi and another son Ratten Lal along with Suresh used to reside at Narnaul. Two courts below, after analyzing the evidence, came to the conclusion that Niranjan Lal had shifted to Delhi and his wife had sold the house at Narnaul, in which they were residing. Nianjan Lal was staying with his son Pushkarmal Garg at Delhi. He died there and was cremated there. It further held that Suresh Chand, who impleaded himself as legal representative, had not dared to appear in the witness box. Other son of Niranjan Lal, Rattan Lal appeared as RW-2. His deposition that partnership has been dissolved and he is in possession of the shop as tenant, has not been believed by the two courts below. Rent Controller held that partnership deed agreement (Ex.RW-1/A) was a mere paper transaction as the entire business was managed by sub-tenant Tek Chand. It held that Niranjan Lal had parted with the possession of the demised shop and Tek Chand was in exclusive possession and control of the shop. No income tax return was filed. Account books and bill books were also not produced. Partnership deed was not a registered document. Rattan Lal RW-2 could not give details as to how much capital was invested in the partnership. He also pleaded ignorance as to whether his father used to file any income tax return or not. He shifted his stand as to who was managing the account books. He 2 Civil Revision No.6146 of 2008 (O&M) stated that his brother Suresh Chand was maintaining the account books. No bank account of the partnership firm was available, as admitted in cross-examination by Rattan Lal RW-2. It was also stated that respondent tenant has failed to prove that any profits of the shop were shared by the partners. Aggrieved against the order of the Rent Controller, petitioner filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the appellate Court below. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below that the partnership deed was a fake document, a sham transaction and was created only to save Tek Chand, who was inducted as sub-tenant, I am of the view that the findings recorded by the two courts below are not perverse, as the evidence adduced has been meticulously considered by two courts below. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction. Hence the present revision petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 9, 2008 rps 3