DEWAN MODERN BREWERIES LTD. Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, dated 15th of January, 1979, has been assailed by which, setting aside the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner M/s. Dewan Modern Breweries Ltd., Jalandhar, and respondent No. 2 Balwant Rai were ordered to be evicted from the tenancy premises.

(2.) THE facts leading to this revision are that the respondent Smt. Savitri Devi rented out the premises in favour of Balwant Rai on 1st April, 1970, on a monthly rent of Rs. 200. She filed an ejectment petition against Balwant Rai respondent and the petitioner on various grounds. One of the grounds, with which we are concerned now, was that Balwant Rai had sublet the tenancy premises without her consent in favour of the petitioner. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application. The Appellate Authority in appeal filed by the landlady accepted her allegation regarding sub-letting and passed the impugned judgment.

(3.) BALWANT Rai respondent admitted that he had taken the premises on rent from Smt. Savitri Devi. He executed a rent deed on 1st April, 1970 in token thereof. It is Exhibit A-2 on the record. Balwant Rai further admitted having sublet the tenancy premises to the petitioner but contended that it was done with the consent of the landlady. He, however, did not produce any evidence to prove the same. The petitioner's contention, however, is that Balwant Rai had created the tenancy on behalf of the landlady Smt. Savitri Devi. However, no cogent evidence was produced to establish that Balwant Rai had acted on behalf of the landlady when he let out the tenancy premises to the petitioner. The witnesses produced by the petitioner testified that a rent note had been executed by the petitioner in favour of Balwant Rai. (In this rent note the terms of tenancy must have been recorded). They further deposed that the petitioner had been paying rent to Balwant Rai who issued receipts on behalf of the landlady. The averment of these witnesses is that the rent note as well as the receipts are in possession of the petitioner. However, these documents have been withheld by the petitioner. If the premises had in fact been rented out by Balwant Rai on behalf of the landlady then this fact must have been mentioned in the rent note executed between the petitioner and Balwant Rai, which is said to be in possession of the petitioner. The fact that the rent note has not been produced by the petitioner would indicate that the there is no such mention therein. There is thus no evidence on the record to prove that Balwant Rai had let out the tenancy premises to the petitioner on behalf of Smt. Savitri Devi. On the contrary, it stands proved that Smt. Savitri Devi had leased out the premises to Balwant Rai on 1st of April, 1970, vide the rent deed Exhibit A.2 and it is apparent that Balwant Rai had let out these premises to the petitioner. Since it is not proved that Balwant Rai had leased out the premises on behalf of Smt. Savitri Devi, it can be fairly assumed that Balwant Rai had sublet the premises.