MAZARA LAL Vs. LACHHMI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby order of the Rent Controller ordering ejectment from a cabin measuring 4'x2.3/4' was upheld.

(2.) SHRI Lachhmi Chand application filed application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') against the petitioner and Hem Raj now arrayed as respondent. The case set up by the landlord was that the cabin built over Chabutra of the building situated on Talab Mandir Road, Ludhiana, was let out to Mazara Lal petitioner vide rent note dated 14.3.1958 for a period of 11 months at a monthly rent of Rs. 9. The period of tenancy was from 1.4.1958 to 28.2.1959. Besides the rent, the tenant was to pay house-tax as well. The landlord sought eviction on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.2.1965, respondent-tenant has sublet the cabin and transferred his tenancy right to respondent No. 2 without his consent or permission and that the property in dispute is in a very dilapidated condition which has clearly become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and thus, claimed his eviction.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and affirmed in appeal in respect of material issue between the parties pertaining to subletting is liable to be reversed. According to the learned counsel, Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority have erred in coming to the conclusion that subletting is proved. According to the counsel, it is amply proved on record that Hazari Lal entered into partnership with Hem Raj, respondent No. 2 who is his real brother. Partnership deed dated 8.3.1964 is Ex.R-1. It was thus argued that ever since this partnership deed dated 8.3.1964, both the brothers are carrying on the business of sale of bangles and parandies. There has been no parting of possession nor there is proof on record that the alleged subletting is for a valuable consideration. Accordingly the finding recorded by the Rent Controller and affirmed in appeal is thus wholly perverse and such a finding can legitimately be interfered with by a revisional Court. Moreover, it is for the landlord to prove subletting. It is only when landlord prima facie shows that the cabin is in exclusive possession of the premises let out for a valuable consideration, it would then be for the tenant to rebut the evidence. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the following judicial pronouncements :-