ARVIND RAO Vs. RAMAKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Gulbarga in HRC. Appeal No.46 of 1971, affirming the order passed by the Principal Munsiff, Gulbarga in HRC. No.37 of 1969. The respondent-land-lord filed an application against the petitioner for eviction, on the ground that the petitioner sub-let the premises leased to him for more than a month to one Sri B.S. Vasudevarao. The petitioner resisted the application, inter alia contending that the said Vasudevarao was staying with him not as a tenant but as his guest. The learned Munsiff, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had sub-let the premises to Vasudevarao. Consequently, the Court made an order of eviction against the petitioner. That order has been affirmed on appeal by the learned District Judge. Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) Shri Manohar Rao Jagirdar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court below committed an error in taking the view that Vasudevarao was a tenant under the petitioner. It is clear from the order of the learned District Judge that he has taken the view that the petitioner had sub-let the premises to Vasudevarao, inasmuch as all the conditions specified in clause (a) to sub-sec. (3) of S.21, Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 have been satisfied in this case. The said clause reads as follows;

(3.) It is clear from the aforesaid clause that if the conditions therein are satisfied, the Court may presume that the premises have been sub-let by a tenant. As the expression used is 'may', it is not obligatory on the part of the Court to draw a presumption that the premises have been sublet by a tenant, if the conditions mentioned in sub-clause (a) of sub-section (3) of S.21 are satisfied. The question whether such a presumption should be drawn or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Besides, it is necessary to note that the presumption arising from clause (a) of sub-sec. (3) of S.21 is a rebuttable one. Even when all the conditions mentioned in clause (a) to sub-sec. (3) of S.21 are satisfied, the tenant may, by producing satisfactory evidence, establish that he has not in fact sub-let the premises. That can be done by the tenant placing satisfactory evidence to establish that the person residing in the premises is either a guest or one of the members of his family. The Court below has failed to notice that the presumption arising out of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of S.21 is a rebuttable presumption.