OM PARKASH GOYAL Vs. RAM PIARI WARYAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision is against concurrent orders of eviction rendered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority against the tenant on a ground urged by the landlord, namely, of subletting of the premises by the 1 st respondent-tenant without the written consent of the landlord. The contention of the landlord in the petition was that the barsati portion of the property in SCF No.24, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh had been sublet to Sh. Ram Dev on a rent of Rs. 90/- per month inclusive of the water and electricity charges and that the property had been in exclusive possession of the sub-tenant. This contention was resisted by the tenant contending that there had been no form of subletting at all and that Ram Dev was the husband of a maid servant working in his house and during short periods when he was ill, he used to come and occupy the premises but would vacate the same. The respondent explained that there had been no exclusive possession to render him liable for eviction.

(2.) At the time of trial certain more facts were brought out to explain the nature of possession of Ram Dev. The petitioner relied on a suit filed by Ram Dev against the tenant before the Civil Court at Chandigarh contending that he was a tenant in respect of premises paying fixed rent of Rs. 70/- inclusive of water and electricity charges and still later, it was raised to Rs. 90/- and since the year 1974 he was in occupation of the premises at the first floor. The suit came to be withdrawn later but the landlord was relying on this to show that a portion of the property had been rented out without his concurrence that made him liable for ejectment. The tenant sought to contend in the course of trial that the suit itself had been engineered by the landlord to be instituted against him and it was collusive attempt on the part of the landlady through Ram Dev to bring evidence in her support. The so-called sub-tenant was also examined by the tenant himself to explain that he had not paid rent at all and that he was not a sub-tenant under the tenant. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority found that Ram Dev had been in exclusive possession of a portion of the property and that the subletting had been proved. The Courts below made specific reference to the averment in the plaint that set out the detail relating to the tenancy and found that the landlord had established his case to order eviction.

(3.) In revision before this Court learned Senior Counsel for the tenant argues that the case has to be understood from the evidence that had been brought before the Court and the reasoning adopted, that would lead only to one conclusion that there had been no case of subtenancy. As a point at the fore-front, the learned Senior Counsel would argue that the Appellate Authority had reasoned that the barsati portion had been in possession of Ram Dev for a brief period only for the services rendered by his wife as a maid servant and his own services as a Driver of a three wheeler owned by the tenant. This, according to the learned Senior Counsel could not be taken as an instance of subletting. The reference to enjoyment of property for services rendered as not constituting a lease that could be taken as a transaction that could fall foul of a rent control legislation was brought through a decision of the Supreme Court in Dipak Banerjee Vs. Lilabati Chakraborty, 1987 4 SCC 161. It made a distinction between the lease under the Transfer of Property Act and the tenancy arrangement under the rent control legislation. The Supreme Court was dealing specifically with reference to West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 in the context of attempt of proof of subletting by saying that yet another person was in occupation of the demises premises, and such other person who was running a tailoring shop contending that he was not a sub-tenant. The Supreme Court was explaining that the user by another person of a property which is demised to tenant as a measure of service to the tenant cannot constitute sub-tenancy. Learned Senior Counsel, Sh. Aggarwal would, therefore, argue that the reasoning adopted by the Court that if the consideration was not at all times monetary then it could not amount to subletting under the provisions of the Act to attract the consequence of eviction. Learned Senior Counsel referred to me the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 with reference to the definitions of the landlord, tenant and the expressions rent and pointed out to the similarity of expressions in both the enactments and the applicability of the decisions to the facts brought out in this case. I am convinced that the expressions in so far as the rent Acts are concerned, are the same but as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, the plea of occupation of Ram Dev for services was not a plea by the landlord, but was a plea by the defendant to explain the possession of Ram Dev at the barsati portion. The case will, therefore, be required to be seen from the point of view of the pleadings and what is brought out in evidence through documents and oral evidence.