JOGINDER SINGH Vs. SARUP SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the admitted case of both sides that Sarup Singh respondent No. 1 is the owner of the premises, that Sarup Singh had let them out to Gurdit Singh respondent No. 2, and that Gurdit Singh had sub -let them to Joginder Singh petitioner. In December, 1970, Sarup Singh filed a petition for the eviction of Gurdit Singh and Joginder Singh on inter alia the grounds that Gurdit Singh had sublet the premises to Joginder Singh without the written consent of the landlord and that the tenant had failed to pay any rent with effect from January 1, 1970. The stipulated rate of rent between Sarup Singh and Gurdit Singh was Rs. 25/ - per mensem. It is not disputed that on the first hearing of the petition for eviction neither Gurdit Singh nor Joginder Singh tendered any amount on account of arrears of rent, etc., Gurdit Singh made an unequivocal statement to the effect that the arrears were due, but he was not in a position to pay. Joginder Singh claimed to be a tenant of Sarup Singh on the basis of sub -tenancy with the written consent of the landlord, but stated that he was not liable to pay anything to Sarup Singh as the latter was not acknowledging Joginder Singh as his tenant. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment of the tenant as well as the sub -tenant on the ground of unauthorised subletting as well as for non -payment of rent. In Joginder Singh's appeal Shri G.S. Chahal, Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, Amritsar, has set aside the finding of the unauthorised subletting and has held that the premises had been sublet by Gurdit Singh to Joginder Singh with the written consent of Sarup Singh. He has, however, maintained the order of ejectment on the ground of non -payment of rent.

(2.) MR . Harbans Lal Sarin, learned Senior Counsel for Joginder Singh petitioner, has taken up a somewhat curious but ingenious position. He says that by virtue of the special definition contained in section 2(i) of the Rent Act, the petitioner is the tenant of Sarup Singh, but having no contractual relationship with Sarup Singh and being in fact a contractual tenant of Gurdit Singh, he is liable to pay rent to Gurdit Singh alone. He claims in the present case that he has already paid rent for the period in question to Gurdit Singh. I am unable to appreciate these arguments of the Learned Counsel. If Joginder Singh is the tenant of Sarup Singh, 3.e is liable to be ejected as a tenant not paying rent and tendering rent, costs or interest, etc., on the first hearing. If he is a sub -tenant as indeed and indisputably he is, he must go out with the tenant if the latter fails to pay rent on the first hearing of the petition for ejectment on the ground of non payment of rent. Gurdit Singh was admittedly the tenant of Sarup Singh. Gurdit Singh defaulted in the payment of rent. He deliberately did not pay or tender the arreas of rent on the first hearing. No fault can at all be found with the order of ejectment against Gurdit Singh. The petitioner having admittedly been inducted by Gurdit Singh as his tenant must go with his landlord in spite of his falling in the category of 'tenant' by virtue of the special definition contained in section 2 (i) of the Act. He cannot claim to stay in the premises independently of Gurdit Singh (through whom he derived right to stay therein) without paying rent to Sarup Singh.

(3.) AT the oral request of Mr. Sarin, the petitioner is allowed time upto June 15, 1977, to hand over vacant possession of the premises to Sarup Singh respondent.