JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. This is landlord’s petition challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) dismissing his petition for ejectment interalia on the ground that respondent No. 1 has sub-let the premises in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3 and that respondent No. 1 has ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 4 months and that respondents are in arrears of rent.
2. Respondent No. 1 admitted the relationship and stated that an agreement was signed to build the shop in place of Khokha with the material supplied by the respondents and then the rent would be chargeable at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month after 1.7.1986. However, whenever the answering respondent approached the applicant he was informed that the site plan has not been got sanctioned from the Municipal Council and other tenants have not agreed to the terms and conditions so that respondent was told to wait till the site plan is sanctioned and other tenants are persuaded for the total construction of the wing as the applicant was-interested to get total wing being constructed at the same time. However, respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a separate written statement submitting that respondent No. 1 is not the tenant and in fact respondents No. 2 and 3 are the tenants under the petitioner through their father. Respondents worked in partnership with Madan Lal till his death and thereafter in their own right, though the receipts of rent continued to be issued in the name of Madan Lal. It was also submitted that the respondents have been paying rent to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-and that Ramji Dass never came in possession of the Shop in dispute as tenant. The agreement dated 17.5.1986 was stated to be illegal, void and not binding on the respondents.
3. The petitioner to prove its case produced on record Ex.A.1, a copy of resolution dated 15.7.1995 authorising Dharam Pal Dhiman, President, Vikram Singh secretary and Shri Arun Dev to initiate legal proceedings and to defend the proceedings jointly and severally. The rent note dated 17.5.1986 earlier executed by Ramji Dass Sharma was produced as Ex.A.2. Said document was proved by way of secondary evidence by Dharm Pal A.W.1. Memo of association of the petitioner society was produced as Ex.A.4. To prove its case, the petitioner produced A.W.1 Dharam Pal Dhiman whereas respondents No. 2 and 3 produced R.W.1 Ramesh Kumar to controvert the evidence of the petitioner.
4. Learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal against the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller to the effect that the rate of rent is Rs. 10/- per month. Since the rent was to be enhanced to Rs. 350/- only if the shop was to be constructed in terms of Ex.A.2 which was found not admissible into evidence. Since no shop has been constructed, therefore, the rate of rent is Rs. 10/- per month only. The Rent Controller also held that Sh. S.N. Chopra had been appointed receiver of the petitioner by the High Court, therefore, Dharam Pal Dhiman is not competent to prosecute this application. It was also held by the Rent Controller that respondent No. 1 has nothing to do with the demised premises and respondents No. 2 and 3 are the direct tenants and thus, the ground of sub-letting does not survive.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid much stress on the admissibility of the rent deed Ex.A.2. The courts below have found such document to be inadmissible in evidence due to its non-registration and even that loss of original of Ex.A.2 has not been proved by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority has found that the document requires registration because the period of lease is not mentioned and that the landlord has not produced the accounts books to prove the receipt of rent for which the Appellate Authority took adverse inference against the petitioner.
6. I am of the opinion that Ex.A.2 was rightly found inadmissible by the courts below. Such document was required to be compulsorily registered in view of the fact that the lease is for unlimited period and signed by both the parties. Dharam Pal Dhiman has not proved the loss of the document. In fact, he has not proved even the existence of the same. It is stated by him that the original rent note executed by Ramji Dass is lost from his custody and inspite of best efforts it could not be traced. It may be stated that the rent note was executed in favour of petitioner society. In normal course the original of the document was to be in the record of the society. There is no evidence regarding the records of the society and whether such document was ever in possession of the petitioner society. Inasmuch as further A.W.1 could not identify the signature of the witness on Ex.A.2 nor he is familiar with the said witness. Even no date of subletting the premises in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3 has been disclosed either in the pleadings or in the evidence. The petitioner has not produced Ramji Dass Sharma either to prove the execution of the rent note dated 17.5.1986 or to prove the relationship of the petitioner with Ramji Dass Sharma as that of landlord and tenant. Written statement of Ramji Dass Sharma admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be used against respondents No. 2 and 3 who have denied such relationship. Ramji Dass Sharma was required to be produced who is material witness to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was the categorical case of respondents 2 and 3 from the very beginning that respondent No. 1 was never in possession nor he was inducted as a tenant. The petitioner has withheld best evidence.
7. Consequently, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded
by the courts below. The petitioner has failed to prove the relationship of landlord and
tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Consequently, this revision petition
is dismissed.