DAWEEDIYA MILADI NABI TRUST Vs. SUBBIAH PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD is the revision petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed by him on the ground of wilful default, sub-letting and act of waste. The Rent Controller passed order of eviction holding that there is unauthorised sub-letting only. The appellate authority reversed the finding on the ground of sub- letting and dismissed the petition for eviction.

(2.) I find from para 7 of the counter of the first respondent the following admission: TAMIL From this it very clear that the first respondent admitted that his father has been asked to collect rent from the persons occupying the two shops. This arrangement can be only by way of agency or that the father was given permission in writing to sub let the premises. The burden is squarely falls on the first respondent to prove that either himself or his father had authority to sub-let. There is absolutely nothing produced before the authorities below to show that his father had the right to sub- let given to him in writing. The appellate authority is clearly in error in holding otherwise. I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the finding of the appellate authority that there is no sub- letting, is wrong. The appellate authority has not given any specific finding as to whether the first respondent or his father had a permission to sublet. Admittedly, R" and R3 are tenants in the premises even on the date of filing the petitioner. They are total strangers. There is no privity of contract between R2 and R3 and the landlord. So it is primary duty of the first respondent to prove how R" and R3 came into the premises. The appellate authority has failed to advert to these facts and came to the wrong conclusion.