RAJ PAL Vs. SMT. BIMLA WATI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlady (Bimla Wati) filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short ''the Act''. for ejectment of the petitioner (Raj Pal) and his son Amit Vaid (respondent No. 2) from the ground floor of shop forming part of property No. 1895 (old) and 965/17 (new), situated at Katra Mohar Singh, Amritsar [for short ''demised premises''. on two grounds, namely bona fide necessity and subletting. The learned Rent Controller framed issue No. 3 with regard to subletting and issue No. 4 in respect of the bona fide necessity of the landlady and ordered ejectment of the tenant and the alleged subtenant vide his order dated 21.12.2006 after deciding issue No. 4 in favour of the landlady and issue No. 3 against her. This led to the filing of two appeals bearing Rent Appeal No. 126 of 2007 titled as ''Raj Pal v. Smt. Bimla Wati and another'' by the tenant Raj Pal against the finding recorded on issue No. 4 and Rent Appeal No. 79 of 2007 titled as ''Smt. Bimla Wati v. Raj Pal and another'' by the landlady against the finding recorded on issue No. 3. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 06.09.2010, reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller on issue No. 3 by holding that the demised premises was sublet by Raj Pal (petitioner) to Amit Vaid (respondent No. 2) maintained the eviction and at the same time dismissed the appeal filed by Raj Pal tenant against the finding recorded on issue No. 4.

(2.) Against the order of the Appellate Authority passed in separate appeals, the present revision has been filed by the tenant Raj Pal alone in which he has challenged the finding recorded on issue Nos.3 and 4. Undisputedly, eviction order against the tenant can be maintained on anyone of the grounds provided in the Act. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked by the Court to assail the finding recorded on issue No. 3 which has been reversed by the Appellate Authority. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding on issue No. 3 could not have been reversed without recording a firm finding that Raj Pal has transferred the possession of the demised premises to Amit Vaid for a valuable consideration. It is also urged that Amit Vaid is none else but the son of Raj Pal and his mere presence on the demised premises does not mean that it had been sublet to him without written consent of the landlady.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his able assistance.