METONIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. KRISHNA BEHL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Doubting the correctness of the decision of the learned single Judge in Panna Lal v. Firm Vakil Chand Pawan Kumar (1980) 82 Pun LR 734, Mr. Justice S. S. Sodhi (as his Lordship then was) referred this revision to a Division Bench.

(2.) As stated by his Lordship, the controversy in this case raises the question : Where a tenant in order to obtain a loan or cash credit facility from the Bank, pledges his goods, which the Bank stores in a part of the demised premises over which it thereafter has exclusive possession, in the sense, that it is locked and sealed by the Bank and the tenant cannot without the permission of the Bank, enter that portion or deal with the goods stored there, does it amount to subletting.

(3.) The petitioner in this revision is the tenant of the premises belonging to respondent No. 1 who filed the application for eviction of the tenant under S. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act on the ground of subletting the premises.