PAINTER GANAPATHI RAO Vs. B. PARASHURAMA ACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against the order of the District Judge, Dakshina Kannade, Mangalore, dated 4.4.1983 made in Civil Revision Petition No. 43 of 1980 on his file. That revision petition was also preferred by the tenant who had suffered an order of eviction by the Munsiff Udupi, A.R.C. No. 49 of 1976 on his file.

(2.) THE landlord who is the respondent in these proceedings had preferred revision petition on two grounds that the petition premises in the occupation of the tenant was required for the purpose of immediate demolition and reconstruction and on the ground that the tenant had sublet the premises to one Leelavathy, a school teacher, contrary to law. The landlord failed to make out a case before the Munsiff in regard to his need of the premises for the purpose of immediate demolition and reconstruction, but succeeded on the ground that it had been sublet without the express permission of landlord. Aggrieved by that order of the Munsiff which ordered victory of the tenant, but denied the right to demolition and reconstruction, both the tenant and the landlord preferred separate revision petitions before the District Judge. For some reason, the District Judge did not club the two revision petitions together and has chosen to make separate orders. While he allowed the revision petition of the landlord in regard to the ground that the premises are required for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction, he dismissed the revision petition of the tenant in regard to the ground of subletting. Therefore, the tenant aggrieved by the orders of the District Judge made under two separate revision petitions, has preferred two separate revision petitions in this court. The other revision petition is C.R.P. No. 2397 of 1983 which will be disposed of separately.

(3.) MR . Vishveswara, learned counsel for the tenant, before me has also pressed more or less the argument that was pressed before the learned District Judge that she was no more than a licensee and in the absence of any evidence that there was consideration paid by way of rent, the Court ought not to hold that there was subletting. I do not think even that argument can be sustained on the admitted facts. The cumulative effect of the various admissions made by Leelavathly who is D.W. 2 in the trial Court and the tenant, the revision petitioner who is D.W. 1 in the trial Court, it is clear that whatever religious service Leelavathy rendered to the tenant was rewarded by permitting her to stay and maintain an establishment of her own in the petition premises independently of the household of the revision petitioner. That reward is the compensation which Leelavathy has paid by way of tenant. Once it is admitted that there is no commensality between the main tenant and the sub-tenant, then, legal presumption must operate. In this view, the Courts below have come to the correct conclusion that it was sublet to Leelavathy.