RAM RICHHPAL Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE demised premises are the land measuring 10 bighas one biswa which comes to about 12,000 square yards comprised in Khasra No. 8489, situated in the urban areas of Hansi. The said premises were leased out in favour of Balwant Singh, Dhanpat Rai and Shikar Chand (who died before the filing of the ejectment application) vide lease deed dated May 5, 1937, Exhibit A.W.6/A. The said premises were leased out for setting up a cotton ginning factory by the lessees. The ejectment application was filed on October 29, 1974, against the tenants on the ground that he had sublet the premises without the written consent of the landlords; there was a change of user thereof as the premises were let out for setting up a cotton ginning factory whereas the tenants had constructed shops thereon and had sublet them and that the landlords bonafide required the demised premises for their own use and occupation. In the written statement, the tenancy was admitted by the respondents. However, it was pleaded by them that the lessees could lease out the factory etc. to any person they liked under the lease. Since the lease was permanent, the landlords did not reserve the right of re-entry and as such, they were not entitled to get back the possession of the premises. It was further asserted that the application for their ejectment therefrom was not maintainable in view of their being permanent lessees thereof and also for want of a notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act. The other pleas taken by the landlords were also controverted. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlords were entitled to get back the possession of the disputed premises as the same had been sublet by the tenants without the written consent of the landlords and the letter bonafide required the same for their own use and occupation. The plea for eviction on the ground of change of user of the premises was negatived. In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed in favour of the landlords. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller with regard to the bonafide requirement of the landlords and the change of user of the demised premises but affirmed the findings of the subletting. Consequently, the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller against the tenants was sustained and the appeal filed by them was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, they have come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that since the lease deed. Exhibit A.W.6/A, was of a permanent/perpetual nature, the petitioner could not be ejected from the demised premises unless there was any violation of the terms of the lease deed itself. According to the learned counsel, so long as the lease deed subsisted, they could only be ejected if there was any violation of the terms thereof and not otherwise. According to learned counsel, since there was no violation of the terms of the lease deed, no eviction order could be passed by the authorities below against them under the Haryana Urban (Control of Land and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter called 'the Act'). In other words, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that the Act was not applicable to the demised premises as long as the lease was not determined as contemplated under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Associated Hotels of India v. Ranjit Singh, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 933. It was also contended by the learned counsel that only a negligible portion measuring about 625 square yards out of the demised premises measuring about 12,000 square yards had been sublet by constructing 38 shops thereon. It did not provide a ground of ejectment of the tenants from the premises. In any case, argued the learned counsel, since the land was leased out and now the shops have been constructed thereon which have been let out, the question of sub-letting thereof did not arise. Reliance in support of this contention was placed on H.P. Gupta v. Jatinder Kumar, 1982(1) RCR 138 (FB) : 1982(1) Rent Law Reporter 337.