KARNAIL SINGH Vs. ANIRUDH PARKASH KAPIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but allowed in appeal.

(2.) THE demised premises consist of a servant room and a cow shed with bath room and w.c. in the anexe portion of house No. 719, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh. They were rented out to the tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 215/- per month. The landlord sought his ejectment therefrom on the ground of his bonafide personal necessity and that he i.e. the tenant had sublet a portion thereof to one Rattan Singh. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that Rattan Singh was his brother and that they had been living together in the demised premises since the year, 1972 when the premises, in question, were taken on rent. The ground of personal necessity was also controverted. On trial, the learned Rent Controller negative all the pleas of the landlord and, thus, dismissed the ejectment application. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller as regards the bonafide requirement of the landlord, but reversed its finding on the question of subletting the premises. It was found that the present was a case of subletting of a portion of the demised premises to Rattan Singh, the brother of tenant Karnail Singh. In view of this finding, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the subletting had not been proved on this case because the alleged sub-tenant Rattan Singh, is the real brother of the tenant karnail Singh. According to the learned counsel, there was no evidence that Rattan Singh was in exclusive possession of the portion of the demised premises and that there was no evidence that he was paying any rent to his brother Karnal Singh. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the finding of the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wrong and illegal.