INDER SINGH Vs. SMT. SUDARSHAN SOOD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant Petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated 27th November, 1978, whereby the landlord's appeal was accepted and the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant.

(2.) SMT Sudarshan Sood wife of Sh. Raj Guru Sood filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. seeking eviction of the tenant (Inder Singh) from a shop situated at Kailash Cinema Road, ludhiana. The ejecimeat was claimed on the grounds of non payment of rent and subletting. However, in the present petition only the ground of subletting subsists, on which the orders of ejectment have been passed by the Appellate Authority. It was pleaded in the petition that Inder Singh had without her consent transferred the possession of the shop in dispute to Gurdip Singh, who was carrying on his business under the name and Style of Jawahar Cloth House As Inder Singh had completely parted with the possession of the shop in favour of Gurdip Singh, it was pleaded that he had sublet the Shop to him. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was also served on Inder Singh on 7th September, 1973, who sent a reply to the same on 11th September, 1973. The tenant contested the application on the ground that the shop in dispute was ever taken on rent by Inder Singh but it was taken on rent by Gurdip Singh from Shri Raj Guru, husband of the landlady. It was maintained that from the very inception of the tenancy, Gurdip Singh had been carrying on his cloth business in the shop and paying rent to his landlord Shri Raj Guru It was further stated that Inder Singh had been running his hotel business since long and the shop in suit was required by Gurdip singh for running his business of a cloth dealer ; that as. Inder Singh and Gurdip Singh are real brothers, they approached Raj Guru, husband of the landlady, and requested him to give the shop it suit on rent to Gurdip Singh ; that the shop was taken on rent from Raj Guru, specifically on the understanding that it would be used by Gurdip Singh It was further alleged that both the brothers are joint in mess, worship, business and other activities and they constitute a Joint Hindu Family. However, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the tenant vehemently argued that the Appellate Authority has not considered the material evidence on the record and has wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the shop was given to inder Singh tenant and he had sublet the same to Gurdip Singh The learned Counsel further contended that the evidence was rightly considered by the Rent Controller and the findings arrived at by him should not have been set aside by the Appellate Authority. It was also contended that in any case even if it may be held that the shop was given on rent to Inder Singh, Gurdip Singh being his real brother could not be held to be a sub tenant under the tacts and circumstances of the present case, particularly when it was pleaded that they are joint in business and residence, etc.