SUDESH KUMARI Vs. MANAGER BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING remained unsuccessful in persuading the Rent Controller, Amritsar, and the Learned Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Amritsar to pass an order/decree of eviction of the respondents from the tenanted premises on the ground of subletting, the petitioners have filed this revision petition with the prayer that the order dated 14.5.1984 passed by the Rent Controller as well as the judgment dated 4.4.1994 of the Appellate Authority, be set aside and the respondents be evicted from the premises in question.

(2.) SMT . Sudesh Kumar (since deceased), Smt. Kamla Khanna and Smt. Sarda Khanna, jointly filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "the Act") for eviction of Manager, Bank of Baroda, Town Hall, Amritsar, on the ground of subletting. Subsequently, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were impleaded as respondents. The petitioners alleged that the premises i.e. No.2761/1-24 situated at Mahan Singh Gate, Amritsar, were let out to respondent No.1 in February, 1971 on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. The tenancy was oral and it was agreed by the respondent that it would not sub-let or transfer the premises to any other parties or person without consent and permission of the petitioners but respondent No.1 had defaulted and had inducted third person in the premises. Respondent No.1 did not file the written statement. However, respondents No.2 and 3 contested the petition by alleging that the premises in dispute were let out to them on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 275/- and finally to Rs. 300/- per month. These respondents denied the allegations contained in the petition that the premises were let out to the Bank and that the Bank was making the payment of rent. They pleaded that the rent was being credited to the account of the petitioners after debiting the same from the accounts of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as per their instructions. They asserted that respondent No.1 never transferred lessee rights to anybody because it had nothing to do with the disputed property except that some goods which were pledged and hypothecated to the respondent-Bank were stored in the godown.

(3.) THE only argument advanced by Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, is that the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the evidence produced before them and they have failed to apply the principles of law in a correct perspective. Mr. Sarin argued that once the landlords had proved the existence of the goods of the bank and key of godown was with the bank, subletting should have been presumed and burden was on the respondents to prove that they had not sublet the tenanted premises without the consent of the landlords.