BRIJ MOHAN Vs. SHRIMATI SARLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Sarla Bhargava brought an application for ejectment against Girdhari Lal and Brij Mohan from the suit premises marked 'AEBCBD' in the plan. The ground for ejectment was that Girdhari Lal had not paid arrears of rent and had unlawfully subleased a portion of the premises to Brij Mohan. Girdhari Lal supported the plea of the owner and the contest really lay between Sarla Bhargava and Brij Mohan. The application for ejectment was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 5th of December, 1964. Sarla Bhargava instituted an appeal to the Appellate Authority and on a re -appraisal of the evidence the decision of the Rent Controller was reversed and the order for ejectment was made on 5th of June, 1965. During the pendency of the appeal, Brij Mohan made an application before the appellate authority that he had actually purchased half of the demised premises from the co -owners under the registered deed of 30th of December, 1964, for a sum of Rs. 3,300/ -.

(2.) THE Appellate Authority declined to go into this question raised by Brij Mohan and allowing the appeal made an order for ejectment. In petition for revision filed by Brij Mohan, it has been urged by Mr. Sarin that the Appellate Authority was bound to consider the sale -deed which had altered the legal status of the parties. As held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Surinder Kumar v. Gian Chand, 1958 S.C.A. 412, "in deciding an appeal the circumstances existing at the time when the appeal is being decided must be taken into consideration. The hearing of an appeal is under the procedural law of the country in the nature of re -hearing and therefore in moulding the relief to be granted in appeal an appellate court is entitled to take into account even facts and events which have come into existence since the decree appealed from was passed", Mr. Gokal Chand Mittal, appearing for the respondent Sarla Bhargava, concedes that the appellate or the revisional court may take into consideration the events which have come into existence subsequent to the order which is under appeal or revision. It is, however, contended by him that the decree for ejectment was sought principally against Girdhari Lal, and Brij Mohan being only a sub -tenant is not a necessary party and in fact he should not have been impleaded at all. Mr. Sarin has brought to my notice the recent decision of the Supreme Court in South Asia Industries Private Ltd. v. S. Anup Singh2, where it was held that in proceedings for ejectment on the ground of assignment or sub -letting without consent of the landlord, the assignee or the sub -tenant is interested, in showing that there was a requisite consent, and is entitled to be made a party to the proceedings. The proceedings having been instituted also against Brij Mohan he as subtenant is interested in the result of the ejectment application. The subsisting decree of the Appellate Authority is bound to affect him and he is, therefore, entitled as a petitioner in this revision petition to ask for a remand on the ground that the factum of sale -deed said to have been registered on 30th December, 1964, should be considered by the Rent Controller as also its legal effects. It is contended by Mr. Sarin that if Brij Mohan has become an owner of half of the demised premises, he cannot be ejected. It would be in the interest of justice to remand these proceedings to the Rent Controller who would consider the effect of the sale -deed which is said to have been registered on 30th of December, 1964, after framing proper issues and recording such evidence as the parties wish to adduce. The counsel have been informed to cause their clients to appear before the Rent Controller, Rewari, on 26th May, 1966. The costs would abide the event.