Malkiet Singh vs Nirmala Devi And Others on 13 January, 2009

Civil Revision No.2094 of 1994                                       -1-

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

                                            Civil Revision No.2094 of 1994
                                            Date of decision: 13.01.2009

Malkiet Singh                                          .............. Petitioner

                                     Vs.

Nirmala Devi and others                                .............Respondents

Present:   Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate
           for the petitioner.

           Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate
           for the respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment ?
2.     To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
                             -.-
K.KANNAN, J.

1. The solitary ground that stands out before this Court is the ground

of alleged subletting by the tenant. Two other grounds having been found

against the landlord by both the Courts and therefore, the counsel was not

incline to address arguments on the other grounds.

2. Before the Rent Controller, the landlord was successful when the

Rent Controller observed that the plea by his tenant namely the respondent

that he had been associated in his business at the petition mentioned

premises with respondent Nos.2 to 4 by a partnership could not be true

having regard to the consideration of fact by the Rent Controller that the

first respondent was unable to give details of the profit and loss of the

partnership, the non-filing of partnership deed right from the period of

tenancy and the admission of the contention that respondent Nos.2 to 4 were

exclusively in possession of the shop. The Appellate Court reversed this

finding and specifically observed that there were two important instances

which clearly established that respondent Nos.2 to 4 had been associated in
Civil Revision No.2094 of 1994 -2-

the business along with the first respondent at all times and the documents

could not have been created only for the purpose of the case as wrongly

understood by the Rent Controller:-

(i) Telephone connection which had been enjoyed by the

second respondent had been later shifted as early as in

the year 1977 at the demised property and it stood in

the name of one of the partners at least 10 years prior

to filing of the petition.

(ii) The income tax returns which were furnished before

the Court related to the years between 1977-78 to

1985, all of which clearly established that the first

respondent had been shown to be one of the partners

along with other persons.

The lower Appellate Court, therefore, reasoned that the mere fact

that the first respondent was unable to recall in his evidence the details of

profit and loss, was irrelevant and the documents which had the stamp of

official credibility could not be doubted as having been created for the

purpose of the case. The reasoning of the Appellate Authority is well

considered and merits acceptance as appreciation on a pure question of fact

which cannot be assailed in revision unless there is a brazen wrong

approach the appreciation of evidence.

3. The revision petition is without merits and the landlord’s action

ought to fail. Dismissed.

(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
January13, 2009
Pankaj*
Civil Revision No.2094 of 1994 -3-