SAT NARAIN Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlords' petition whose application for ejectment was allowed by the Rent Controller, but was dismissed in appeal.

(2.) THE landlords sought the ejectment of the tenant, intera alia, on the ground of subletting the demised premises. It was alleged that the premises, in dispute, were let out to Raghbir Singh, respondent No. 1, on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/- with effect from September 1, 1962. It was initially an oral tenancy, but the tenant executed the rent note on January 8, 1963, wherein he undertook to carry on the business Transport under the name and style of M/s Azad Goods Transport in the premises, in question. Respondent No. 1 sublet or transferred the rights under the lease to New Janta Goods Transport Co., respondent No. 4, in the year 1964 and also recovered the rent of Rs. 105/- for the demised premises, for the months from April to June, 1964. Respondent No. 1 also sublet the premises to M/s. Green Roadways, respondent No. 3, who were in its exclusive possession and were doing the transport business therein. These allegations were controverted in the reply filed on behalf of Raghbir Singh, respondent. It was pleaded that New Janta Goods Transport Co. was a partner in the business of the contesting respondent whereas he (the respondent) worked as an agent of M/s. Green Roadways in the demised premises for some time. Thus, there was no question of any subletting of the premises in these circumstances. The learned Rent Controller upheld the ground of subletting of the premises by respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and as a result, passed the order of ejectment against the tenant-respondent. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed this finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence whatsoever to hold that Raghbir Singh, respondent, had parted with the legal possession and if either of the two transport companies, i.e., the alleged sub-lessees, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, were at any time, in exclusive possession of the demised premises. Consequently, the order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the respondents was set aside and the landlords' eviction application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.