JUDGMENT
S.K. Jain, J.
1. Suraj Parkash landlord filed an application for ejectment of his tenant Tarsem Lal from House No. 131, consisting of four rooms, a verandah and a court-yard on the grounds of subletting, change of user and value and utility of the premises having been impaired.
2. Tarsem Lal tenant took the stand that he had vacated the demised premises and handed over possession thereof to the landlord, whereafter he had leased it out to Magan Lal-respondent No. 2. All other allegations were denied.
3. Respondent Magan Lal in his reply contended that he had taken the house in dispute alongwith some other land adjoining the same on rent from the landlord Suraj Parkash w. e. f. June 1, 1976, and had paid one month’s rent in advance in the presence of certain persons, but the landlord had not issued any receipt there for.
4. On the first date of hearing, Magan Lal tendered arrears of rent alongwith interest and costs but the landlord refused to accept the same on the ground that Magan Lal was not his tenant.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-
(1) Whether Tarsem Lal respondent No. 1 is in arrears of rent and house-tax qua the demised building with effect from 1-7-1976? If so, its effect?
(2) Whether Tarsem Lal respondent No. 1 has sublet the demised building without consent of the applicant to Magan Lal respondent ?
(3) Whether the demised building was rented out to Tarsem Lal respondent for residential purposes and the latter has set up a saw mill and flour-factory in it ? If so, its effect ?
(4) Whether Tarsem Lal respondent No. 1 has made structural alterations in the demised building and has thereby impaired the value and utility ? If so, its effect ?
(5) Whether Tarsem Lal respondent No. 1 vacated the demised building and handed over the possession of it to Suraj Parkash applicant; If so, when and to what effect ?
(6) Whether the instant application suffers from misjoinder of parties ?
(7) Whether Magan Lal, respondent No. 2, got the Ihata measuring 90’X60′ including the demised premises on rent from Suraj Parkash applicant on 1-6-1976 at the monthly rent of Rs 150/-?
(8) Whether the instant application has been made to harass Tarsem Lal respondent No. 1 ? If so, its effect ?
(9) Relief.
6. The Rent Controller returned findings on issue Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in favour of Magan Lal respondent whereas all other issues were decided against him Although no specific issue with respect to the identity of the tenanted premises was framed, yet the Rent Controller held that the identity of the premises had not been established and, therefore, the petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord preferred an appeal, which was accepted by Shri R.K Battas, Apellate Authority, Bhatinda, vide his judgment dated August 25, 1980, holding as under :-
(i) The applicant is admittedly the owner and landlord of the premises in question;
(ii) He gave the premises on rent to Tarsem Lal respondent No. 1 ;
(iii) There is no evidence to show that Tarsem Lal terminated his tenancy by handing over the possession back to the applicant ;
(iv) The consistent stand of Tarsem Lal right from filing of his reply is that he left possession on 1-7-1976 ;
(v) that the premises are now in exclusive possession of Magan Lal, the contesting respondent ;
(vi) Migan Lal executed no rent note and has no documentary evidence to prove that he took the premises on rent direct from Suraj Parkash ;
(vii) Magan Lal and his witnesses are belied by documentary evidence on their allegations that the premises were leased out orally and rent was received by the applicant on 1-6-1976 or at any time prior to it ;
(viii) The date from which the rent is admittedly due synchronises with the date with effect from which Tarsem Lal respondent No. 1 according to himself and the applicant, ceased to have any concern with the premises due to their occupation, by Magan Lal, the contesting respondent.
7. In conclusion he held that the premises in dispute were never leased to Magan Lal and his occupation was that of a sub-tenant. On the point of identity of the premises, it was held by him that the property, which had been shown in red colour in plan Exhibit A-1 was the subject matter of litigation. Resultantly, he accepted the appeal. In this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act No. 3 of 1949, the above said judgment of the Appellate Authority has been impugned by Magan Lal
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their help gone through the evidence on the records.
9. Sole argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the identity of the demised premises having not been established the Rent Controller had rightly dismissed the petition of the landlord.
10. On the ether hand, learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the stand of the petitioner Magan Lal throughout had been that he was a tenant under Suraj Parkash in respect of the demised premises and, therefore, it did not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the identity of the premises is not established.
11. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments and have gone through the record of the case.
12. In his written statement, Magan Lal had taken a stand that he had entered into the premises as a tenant under Suraj Parkash on June 1, 1976, and had paid one month’s rent in advance in the presence of Banarsi Dass, Suninder Kumar and Brij Lal AW-1 AW-2 and AW-3 respectively. Statements of these three witnesses have been closely scrutinized by the Courts below and they have rightly disbelieved them. Consistent finding of the Courts below is that Magan Lal was in possession of the demised premises only as a sub-tenant. No fault can be found with the said finding.
13. Now on to the identity of the demised premises:
In site-plan Exhibit A-1 demised premises have been shown in red colour. On the western side thereof Karkhana of Puran Chand has been shown Perusal of rent note Exhibit A-2 executed by Tarsem Lal in favour of Suraj Parkash, shows that house number mentioned therein is 131. Examination of copies of a poster Exhibit A-10 for the year 1978-79, Exhibit A-11 for the year 1977-78, Exhibit A-12 for the year 1976 and Exhibit A-13 for the year 1975 shows that the number of the house has been shown as 131 in all these documents. Vide agreement Exhibit A-3, Harnam Dass and Tarsem Lal had sold certain machinery to the Babu Ram and therein number of the premises is shown to be 95. Tarsem Lal appearing as AW-2 has set the controversy at rest by deposing that it was only a typographic mistake and that it was the only building in which he was running the business as a lessee under Suraj Parkash. So far as the confusion with respect to the number of rooms, of which the property is comprised, is concerned, as mentioned herein above, in copies of assessment register Exhibits A-10 to A-13 Harnam Dass and Tarsem Lal have been shown to be in possession of these rooms besides sheds. The landlord herein has sought ejectment of the respondents from the portion marked red in site-plan Exhibit A-1 towards the street, which is proved to have been sublet by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2.
14. On the western side of the premises in dispute house of Puran Chand has been shown, but as is clear from the site-plan a joint passage (Raasta Mustarka) of Suraj Parkash landlord and Puran Chand intervenes the two properties. Thus, there was nothing wrong with the boundaries of the demised premises.
15. Besides what has been said above, the controversy has been set at rest by petitioner Magan Lal himself, who in his para 2(m) of his written statement has mentioned that he had taken on lease the site measuring 90’X60′, which included the property in dispute on rent from the applicant from Ist June, 1976, and respondent No. 1 had no concern with it. That being so, now he cannot turnround and say that he was not in possession of the demised premises.
16. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any fault with the impugned judgment, which is affirmed. Resultantly, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs, 1,000/-.