HARISHANKAR PEKKRAIA Vs. RADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlord applied for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and sub-letting. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition on the ground of arrears of rent; but the other ground, viz., sub-letting was found against. In appeal by the landlord the learned appellate authority allowed eviction on the ground of sub-letting also. When the matter was pending before the District Judge in revision the arrears were deposited. So the only ground available was sub-letting. The learned District Judge in revision upheld the finding of the learned appellate authority and ordered eviction on that ground. The tenant has, therefore, come up in revision.

(2.) The building was taken on rent by late Dr. T. Damodaran Nair, the father of respondents 1 and 2 (respondents in the trial Court) on 2.5.1949 executing a kychit. On his death the building fell to the possession of the 2nd respondent and there he is running a clinical laboratory. The third respondent is in possession of the out-house scheduled as building No. 2 in the petition. The case of the petitioner (1st respondent herein) is that No. 2 building is sub-let to the 3rd respondent. She is an ayah doing menial service to the clinic, like sweeping, removal of urine, motion etc. The case of the second respondent-tenant is that the ayah is allowed to occupy the second building free of rent and that there is no sub-letting as between him and the 3rd respondent. Legal possession is still with the second respondent. Being the ayah attached to the clinic she has been provided with a residential accommodation and it would be incorrect to say that that portion of the building has been sublet to her. But on a careful consideration of the question in all relevant aspects I am led to the conclusion that the third respondent must be treated as a sub-tenant in occupation of No. 2 building under the second respondent. She was residing in a rented building some distance away from the clinic and from there she was evicted. It was after that that she was inducted into building No. 2 by the second respondent. She is now residing there with her children, amongst whom there are grown-up persons having independent employment elsewhere. The ration card issued to her is under that address and for all practical purposes she is in exclusive possession of the building. In the circumstances it would be idle on the part of the second respondent to contend that she is only in custody of the building and that legal possession is still with him. In para 7 of the counter filed by the respondents it has been stated that the third respondent has been in occupation of the out-house for the past several years.