MANJIT SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed by Manjit Singh under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, challenges concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below holding that the petitioner is a sub-tenant of one Amar Singh tenant-respondent-2. It has further been found that the demised premises were rented out by the landlord- respondent-1 to tenant-respondent-2. The plea of the sub-tenant-petitioner-2 that he, in fact, is a tenant directly under the landlord-respondent-1, has been repelled by both the courts below. The findings are based on cogent evidence recording the conclusion that the sub-tenant-petitioner is in exclusive possession of the demised premises which have been given to him by Amar Singh tenant-respondent-2 without any written consent by the landlord- respondent-1. The analysis of the evidence and the conclusion reached by the Appellate Authority are evident from the detailed para-10 of the judgment which reads as under :-

(2.) MR . Rajesh Garg, learned counsel for the sub-tenant-petitioner has argued that tenant-respondent-2 Amar Singh has never been served in the proceedings undertaken by the Rent Controller. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of the presence of tenant-respondent-2, the findings of fact recorded by both the courts below cannot be sustained because the right of the sub- tenant-petitioner has been prejudiced. He further submitted that had be been served and come before the Rent Controller, then this statement would have been recorded and in case of his hostile deposition by him, the sub-tenant- petitioner could have cross-examined the defendant-respondent-2. The learned counsel urged that once a sub-tenant stakes his claim asserting direct tenancy under the landlord, then in the absence of evidence showing that the original tenant surrendered the tenancy to the sub-tenant no inference of sub-tenancy could be raised. He has further argued that in any case, the sub-tenant- petitioner has been paying rent to the landlord-respondent-1 directly at the rate of Rs. 150/- and then at the rate of Rs. 180/-.

(3.) THE learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Dr. Gyan Parkash v. Som Nath and others, 1996(1) RCR 342, to argue that in any case, there is no necessity to prove the surrendering of possession by the original tenant to the sub-tenant. Once it is held that the sub-tenant is in exclusive possession of the demised premises, it is for him to show as to how he has come in possession of the demised premises. The mere payment of rent by the sub-tenant to the landlord-respondent-1 would not be sufficient to create direct tenancy under the landlord-respondent-1 as has been held by the Supreme Court in Dr. Gyan Parkash's case (supra).