JAWAHAR LAL Vs. DEV RAJ AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jawahar Lal let out the premises in discussion to Dev Raj by rent upto dated 14th December, 1956, (Exhibit

(2.) On 28th March, 1969, the landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of being in arrears of rent and subletting besides one more ground. In the written statement the tenant took up the plea that although the tenancy was created by rent note dated 14th December, 1956 Jawahar Lal landlord created a Trust. I rust on 31st December, 1956, therefore he ceased to be the landlord and now ownership of the property vested in the Trust and a notice of termination of tenancy and ejectment petition could be issued and filed by the trustees jointly. It is not disputed that Jawahar Lal was as one of the trustees. On this basis, the relationship or landlord and tenant was denied, On the first date of hearing, the arrears of rent etc. here tendered which were accepted by the landlord and that ground of ejectment ceased to exist. The Court proceeded to find out whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and if that was established, whether there was subletting. The Rent Controller by the judgment dated 15th July, 1971, came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the parties and found I that the tenant had sublet the premises to Hans Raj and therefore, ordered the ejectment. The tenant and the subtenant filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority by judgment dated 28th April, 1975. upheld the finding of the Rent Controller with regard to subletting but upset the finding with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant and came to the conclusion that since the Trust was created after 17 days of the creation of the tenancy, it was the body of the trustees alone who could terminate the tenancy and file a petition partition for ejectment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the application for ejectment was dismissed. The landlord has come to this Court in revision.

(3.) The counsel for the parties did not raise any argument of substance with regard to the finding of the Court below on the point of subletting. In fact, this finding was not seriously challenged on behalf of the tenant.