DEVINDER SINGH SANDHU Vs. KRISHAN CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE concurrent finding of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority that the tenant-Devinder Singh Sandhu had sublet the demised premises to his brother-in-law Hardev Singh Bajwa warrants no interference in revision.

(2.) THE material on record shows that the first floor of House 155 in Sector 20 let out to the tenant Devinder Singh Sandhu, Superintendent, Excise and Customs. Later, in May 1983, he was transferred to Ludhiana, where he was allotted government residential accommodation in the Railway colony, Ludhiana, which he has been occupying since September 1984. The family of the tenant has also shifted to Ludhiana and his children have been admitted to school there and they have been living there ever since. In his absence now, his brother-in-law resides in the demised premises, the plea of the tenant being that this brother-in-law is dependent upon him and further that he has left his luggage behind in these premises and whenever he visits Chandigarh, he comes and lives there.

(3.) TURNING to the brother-in-law of the tenant Hardev Singh Bajwa, the plea that he was dependent upon the tenant, stands negatived by his own evidence and the documentary evidence on record, which shows that he was employed with Sartaj Transport from 1980 to 1982 and then again from 1983 onwards while during the intervening period from August 1982 to August 1983 he was working for Punjab Anand Batteries. Being gainfully employed in this manner, he cannot be said to have been dependent upon his brother-in-law.