LAWS(P&H)-1985-11-42

ARJAN SINGH Vs. SADA NAND

Decided On November 25, 1985
ARJAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
SADA NAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) SADA Nand, landlord, sought the ejectment of his tenant Arjan Singh from the shop in dispute, primarily on the ground of subletting. It was alleged that he had sublet the premises to Sanwalia, respondent No. 2, his real brother. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that earlier also on this very ground ejectment was sought by the landlord but was declined by the Rent Controller vide order dated February 27, 1973, Exhibit R. 1. Appeal against the said order of the Rent Controller was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated October 10, 1974, certified copy, Exhibit R. 2. It was further pleaded that there was no subletting. The alleged sub-tenant was his real brother. The eviction application (out of which the present revision petition has arisen) on the same cause of action was not maintainable. The learned Rent Controller found that earlier also the instant ground was taken by the landlord for the ejectment of the tenant, but had failed and, therefore, the ejectment application, not maintainable. It was, also, found that Arjan Singh, tenant, was in actual possession of the shop, in dispute, and that the possession of his brother, Sanwalia, was that of a licensee and not that of a sub-tenant. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller on the ground that the principles of res judicata did not apply to the proceedings under the Rent Act. It also held that the ground of subletting by the tenant in favour of his brother was proved. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the order of Rent Controller rejecting the ejectment application was set aside and the eviction order was passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.