KIDAR NATH Vs. NARSINGH DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision is directed against the cider of the Appellate Authority affirming on appeal the decision of the Rent Controller rejecting the landlord's application for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he has sublet the premises without the written consent of the landlord.

(2.) The premises belong to Messrs Kidar Nath and Sons, and they were let out to Narsingh Dass who is doing the business of a cloth merchant. To start with, Narsingh Dass has been keeping a tailor on the premises and charging money form him for use and occupation of the premises. Later on, a dispute started between the tailor and Narsingh Dass. The tailor (Tilak Raj) claimed that he was a sub-tenant of Narsingh Dass whereas the case of Narsingh Dass was that he was merely a licensee. The trial Court found that Tilak Raj was a licensee. On appeal the decision was reversed by the lower appellate Court. The matter came up in second appeal to this Court. Mr. Justice Harbans Singh as he then was dealt with the appeal and it was compromised. The status of Tilak Raj was settled in compromise to be that of a licensee. According to the terms of the compromise Tilak Raj was to continue in occupation of the premises as a licensee on payment of license fee and so long as the license fee was paid, he could not be evicted. Therefore, as between Narsingh Dass and Tilak Raj, there is a binding decision of this Court though of course on compromise that Tilak Raj is a licensee. Nothing has happened after this decision which has altered the position of Tilak Raj from that of a licensee to that of a sub-tenant.

(3.) The present petition was filed by the landowners for eviction of Narsingh Dass on the ground of subletting. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that there was no subletting, because the possession of Tilak Raj was that of a licensee. The Appellate Authority on appeal affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller. When the matter came up before me on May 1, 1970, I remanded the case to the Appellate Authority to determine whether Tilak Raj was a subtenant or a licensee. The appellate authority has recorded a finding on the evidence that Tilak Raj is a licensee. The landowners have come up in revision to this Court.