ASHOK KUMAR Vs. PARTAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('Act' - for short) against the order dated 26.7.1991 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal of the tenant-petitioner against the order dated 1.2.1990 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Samrala has been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the landlord-respondent earlier filed a petition under Section 13 of Act on the ground of non-payment of rent by the tenant-petitioner and that the shop was needed by him for his personal use. The latter ground was abandoned. The tenant-petition tendered the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing and the earlier petition was disposed of as having become infructuous by the learned Rent Controller, Samrala on 20.3.1986. Thereafter, the landlord-respondent filed the second petition on 22.5.1987 for seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner on the ground that the tenant-petitioner had sublet the shop in question to proforma respondent No. 2, Rakesh Kumar. The relationship between tenant-petitioner and the landlord-respondent No. 1 is admitted.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have erred in considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that whenever an allegation of subletting the tenancy is made, it has to be established by the landlord that the tenant has parted with the exclusive possession of the premises in lieu of compensation or rent. In the case in hand, it is contended that the landlord- respondent has not led any evidence whatsoever as to whether any compensation or rent has been paid to the petitioner by the alleged sub-tenant. There is nothing to prove the payment of any consideration. Therefore, the ingredients of sub-tenancy, it is contended, have not been proved by the respondent. It is also contended that the Authorities under the Act have erred in not relying upon the partnership deed (Exh. R-1). The said partnership deed, it is contended is legal and valid and shows that there has been no subletting on the part of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 along with their father were jointly running the shop in question and even after Ashok Kumar's appointment as government servant, the shop in question was run jointly by all the three. The income derived from the partnership, it is contended, is joint income of the family.