SHRIMATI SURINDER KAUR Vs. OM CHANDER FAKAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A shop cum flat was taken on rent by the tenant for carrying on his profession as doctor and for living on the first floor. In the year 1969, in a portion of the shop the tenant's son was allowed to carry on business of selling medicines as a Chemist. The premises are in Chandigarh. When the alleged subletting took place no Rent Control Act was applicable in Chandigarh. The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was extended to Chandigarh on 4th November, 1972. It is thereafter that the landlady filed an application on 30th September 1975 for eviction of the tenant and the only ground with which we are concerned, was regarding the subletting by the tenant to his son who was carrying on business in the trade name of M/s United Trading Corporation. The tenant denied subletting. The Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that there was no subletting because the father and the son were jointly living on the first floor and father was carrying on his profession as a doctor in the shop portion where the son was also doing Chemist business. According to the authorities below this does not amount to subletting or parting with the possession of any part of premises. The Appellate Authority also noticed that the alleged subletting had taken place long before the Act came into force. This is landlord's revision.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that there is no scope for interference in this revision.

(3.) THERE is another important hurdle in the way of the landlady in view of the decision of the highest Court in Gurcharan Singh and others v. V.K. Kaushal, 1981(1) RCR 59 (AIR 1980 SC 1866) wherein it is held that if subletting takes place before the commencement of the Act and continues till after the Act comes into force, no eviction can he sought on the ground of subletting. That decision is regarding the provision and of the same Act with which we are concerned in this case. Hence the aforesaid decision is on all fours with the facts of the present case. Thus, no eviction order can be passed even if it is assumed that there was subletting.