SHRI SHANTI RAM Vs. SAGLI RAM ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sagli Ram landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the eviction of Bakhat Ram (respondent no. 2 in his petition, and Shanti Ram, petitioner. The eviction was sought on various grounds inter alia that Bakhat Ram had sub-let and had parted with possession of the demised premises in favour of the petitioner without the written consent of the landlord. The other grounds of eviction are not relevant in so far as the present Revision Petition is concerned, as the case has been fought only on the above mentioned ground in this Court.

(2.) At the time of the arguments in this Revision Petition, the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. H. L. Sarin stated at the bar that the petitioner has long since been evicted from the premises in execution of the ejectment order. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, wants to argue the Revision Petition on merits and I have, therefore, heard the matter irrespective of the eviction of the petitioner. While contesting the ejectment petition before the Rent Controller, the petitioner took up the stand that he was not a sub-tenant through Bakhat Ram, but was a direct tenant under the landlord at Rs. 15/- per month. He, therefore, denied the allegation of subletting. The trial court, after considering the evidence produced by the parties before him, dismissed the ejectment petition and in regard to the moot point noticed above, his finding was that the petitioner was a direct tenant under the landlord at Rs. 15/- per month. The landlord went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority, who reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the crucial point and held that the landlord had succeeded in proving that the original tenant Bakhat Ram had sub-let and parted with possession of the demised premises in favour of the petitioner Shanti Ram without the written consent of the landlord and on account of this finding, the eviction of the petitioner was ordered. The learned Appellate Authority recorded a clear finding that the petitioner has not proved to be a tenant directly under the landlord as claimed by him

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. P. Jain has referred to the evidence on record and has tried to assail the finding of the Appellate Authority on the question of sub-letting. His main submission is that even if his client is unable to prove that he was a tenant directly under the landlord, he could not have been evicted unless and until the landlord had established that a relationship of tenancy subsisted between the original tenant Bakhat Ram. and the petitioner who is said to be a sub-tenant. According to the learned counsel unless and until this relationship is established, the petitioner could resist eviction even though he may be a trespasser. I am afraid, the argument is basically unacceptable. The learned counsel seems to ignore the very provision of the Act on the question of sub-letting and a reference to the same is, therefore, necessary. Under Section 13 (ii) (a) of the Act, one of the grounds for eviction which is mentioned is "that the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord transferred his right under the lease or sub-let the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof." A bare perusal of this provision would indicate that it is not only on the ground of sub-letting that a tenant incurs liability for eviction, but even in a case where he transferred his right under the lease to some one else. In the case in hand, the petitioner himself claimed to be in possession of the property, though as a direct tenant under the landlord. The evidence produced by the landlord is more than sufficient to establish that the original tenant had parted with his possession of the property in favour of the petitioner. In fact, the original tenant Bakhat Ram conceded this allegation in his written statement.