BASANT LAL Vs. SANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller holding subletting by Sant Ram in favour of Hari Chand was set aside.

(2.) THE petitioners filed an ejectment petition stating therein that Sant Ram was inducted as a tenant who has sublet the tenanted premises to Hari Chand and transferred its exclusive possession to Hari Chand for consideration unauthorisedly and without consent in writing of the petitioners. A written statement was filed to the effect that Hari Chand is in fact a tenant and Sant Ram has nothing to do with the shop. It was stated that Hari Chand is a tenant since the inception of the tenancy and it is he who has been paying rent to the landlord. It was stated that Sant Ram is in relation of Hari Chand. He was instrumental in getting the shop on rent to Hari Chand and that he had never occupied the shop in question even for a day.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , there is no written document of tenancy. The petitioner has relied upon counterfoils Ex.AW2/2, Ex.AW2/3 and Ex.AW2/5 signed by Sant Ram to contend that initially the shop was taken on rent by Sant Ram. Subsequent payment of rent by Hari Chand will not establish independent tenancy in his favour. Since admittedly, Hari Chand is in exclusive possession of the shop, therefore, findings of the Appellate Authority are wholly illegal and not sustainable.