PANNA LAL Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common question of law has been raised in all the three appeals arising out of a common judgment. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, therefore, these are taken up together and disposed of by one order.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these appeals are that Shri Satish Kumar and others respondents herein filed eviction petition against the present appellants on three grounds, namely (i) bonafide requirement; (ii) sub-letting and finally (iii) for misuser of the premises in question. The respondents landlord/owner gave up the ground of mis-user before the Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC). Respondents restricted the grounds of eviction against the appellants only on two counts, namely (i) bonafide requirement and of sub-letting. The learned ARC basing his conclusion on the evidence placed on record held that the need of the respondents herein was not bonafide. On appeal being preferred the learned Rent Control Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) confirmed this finding of the learned ARC. The ARC on the second count held that it was not a case of sub-letting and declined to grant decree of eviction in favour of respondent herein. However, in appeal the learned Tribunal set aside this finding of the learned ARC and held that it was a case of sub-letting and granted decree of eviction. Thus there is concurrent finding of both the Courts below regarding the need of the landlord to be not bonafide. The reason for deciding this issue against the respondents was that they had already acquired additional accommodation adjacent to the house in question. Taking into consideration the additional accommodation it was held that he had sufficient accommodation with him to accommodate his family. That finding has not been assailed before me. The only finding which is under attack is whether the Tribunal could reverse the finding of the learned Additional Rent Controller on the ground of subletting?.

(3.) The facts leading to the averments of sub-letting were that one Panna Lal became a tenant of Shri Banarsi Dass in the year 1934-35. At that time he was permitted to re-let the premises for and on behalf of owner/landlord Banarsi Dass. That Panna Lal had been sub-letting the premises on behalf of the landlord as his Thekedar. The present appellants were also inducted as tenants in the premises in question by the said Panna Lal. Respondents raised the objection that Panna Lal being tenant could not sub-let the premises without landlord's consent as the sub-letting had taken place after 9th June, 1952. Thus the only point in issue was whether sub-letting had taken place prior to 9th June, 1952 or thereafter. If after 9th June, 1952 then whether Panna Lal obtained consent of the landlord for sub-letting the premises to the present appellants. Panna Lal and other sub-tenants against whom eviction was sought appeared as their own witnesses as PW-12 to PW-18. They testified that they were inducted as sub-tenants in the premises in question by Panna Lal much before 9th June, 1952. The learned ARC on the basis of this evidence concluded that there was no case of sub-letting. Panna Lal was authorised to let out the premises. Written consent was not required as the sub-letting was prior to 9th June, 1952.