MK TEXTILE MILLS LTD Vs. GIAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the concurrent orders of the Courts below allowing ejectment of the petitioner -tenants from the demised premises on the ground that the petitioners No.1 and 2 were the original tenants and the same had been sublet to the petitioners No.3 to 6 and the respondents No.2 to 8.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 through petitioner No.2 orally took on rent a portion of the property bearing No.3095/14 -21 situated in Gali No.2 Putlighar, Azad Nagar, Amritsar at a monthly rent of Rs.325/ -. The petitioner No.2 at the time of taking the demised premises on rent was the sole proprietor of petitioner No.1. The rent note by petitioner No.1 through petitioner No.2 was also executed on 21.6.1976 in favour of the respondent No.1, wherein all the terms and conditions of the tenancy were embodied. The ejectment of the 1 of 6 petitioners -tenant from the demised premises was sought on various grounds. The first ground on which the ejectment of the petitioners -tenant was sought was to the effect that the petitioners No.1 and 2 are in arrears of rent and house Tax w.e.f. 01.12.1978. The second ground seeking ejectment of the petitioners -tenant from the demised premises was to the effect that petitioners No.1 and 2 after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, without the written consent of the respondent No.1 transferred their rights under the lease and sublet the entire building to petitioners No.3 to 6 and respondents No.2 to 8. The third ground on which the ejectment of the petitioners -tenant was sought is that they committed such acts which materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. The fourth ground on which the ejectment of the petitioners - tenant had been sought is that petitioners No.1 and 2 have ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of 4 months without reasonable and sufficient cause. On the final refusal of the petitioners -tenant to vacate the demised premises, the present application for ejectment was filed. Ultimately the only ground which prevailed in both the Courts was of sub -letting.

(3.) The case of the respondent No.1 -landlord was that it had given premises in dipsute to the petitioner No.2 as sole proprietor of petitioner No.1 but he had sublet the portions of the building to the other respondents mentioned above. The case of the petitioners No.1 and 2 on the other hand was that the petitioner No.3 -Ruby Fancy Twisters was an HUF business of which the petitioner No.2 was the karta and far from being a sub -tenant the fact was that it was doing some work for petitioners No.1 and 2 on the machines of petitioners No.1 and 2 and was being paid for the same by petitioners No.1 and 2. As regards, respondents No.2 to 5 it was denied that they were doing any business in any part of the premises in dispute. Both the Courts below found that petitioner 2 of 6 No.2 was not able to prove that petitioner No.3 was an HUF concern and therefore came to the conclusion that there was subletting. As regards respondents No.2 to 5 also it was proved that respondent No.3 had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners No.2 and 4 alleging that they had let out premises to respondents No.2 to 5 and were trying to take possession illegally. The said suit was withdrawn and on the application for withdrawal petitioner No.2 and 4 had signed. Thus the Courts below held that petitioners No.2 and 4 had admitted the respondents No.2 to 5 to be tenants.