RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. BHAGWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition directed against the order of the appellate Authority vide which tenant was ordered to be ejected.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that one Kapoori Mal, resident of Sangrur, was owner of the shop in dispute. His widow, Bhagwanti, (respondent No. 1 herein) alleging herself to be the owner of the shop, sought ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the shop had been let out to Nauhar Chand and on his death, his sons namely Hem Raj and Budh Ram (respondents No. 2 and 3 herein) have become her tenants and they have sublet the shop to Rajinder Kumar (Petitioner herein) without her written consent. The sons of Nauhar Chand, in the written statement, admitted the claim of the landlady. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the written statement was signed only by the counsel. Petitioner alone contested the ejectment petition on the ground that Kapoori Mal was owner of the shop. One of his sons, Manohar Lal, represented himself as Nauhar Chand and leased out the shop vide rent-note dated 16-11-1968. Petitioner in his written statement stated that Nauhar Chand or his sons never came into possession of the shop. He further stated that Manohar Lal has played a traud by representing himself as Nauhar Chand. The Rent Controller, on consideration of evidence brought on record, found that neither Nauhar Chand nor his sons ever came into possession. Petitioner alone was found to be in possession right from inception of the tenancy. As a result of this finding, ejectment petition on the ground of subletting was dismissed. On appeal by the landlady, order of the Rent Controller was set aside and petitioner was ordered to be ejected. Tenant (Petitioner herein) has now come in revision impugning order of the appellate Authority.

(3.) MR. R. K. Battas, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner, contended that the tenant can be ejected on the ground of sub-letting only if the landlord proves on record that the tenant has parted with possession. According to him, in the present case, Nauhar Chand or his sons never came into possession of the shop and so, there is no question of sub-letting of the shop by them to the petitioner. In reply to this, Mr. M. L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, counsel for the respondents, contended that petitioner in his written statement has admitted that he took the premises from Nauhar Chand who is none-else but the tenant and, therefore, the appellate Authority rightly ordered ejectment of the tenant.