KISHORI LAL Vs. BEANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-landlord filed a petition under S. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as applicable to Chandigarh, against the petitioner claiming his. eviction on grounds, inter alia, of personal necessity subletting and change of user of the premises. These pleas did not prevail with the learned Rent Controller. The respondent-landlord went in appeal before the learned Appellate Authority who held that the petitioner had, in fact sublet the premises in question within the meaning of S. 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act and that the landlord did need the premises in dispute for his personal necessity.

(2.) Mr. Kapoor learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that some part of the premises had been sublet in favour of one Chander Parkash much earlier than the date on which the Act was enforced in Chandigarh and for that reason the ejectment order the petitioner should not have been pared. S. 13(2)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act reads as under.-

(3.) The language of the section does to some extent advance the contention raised by the learned counsel but the learned Appellate Authority, after considering the evidence of Mrs. Joginder Kaur AW 2, the earlier landowner, and the other evidence produced by the respondent has come to the conclusion that the subletting was without the permission of respondent-landlord. It is settled low that there are two principal covenants of contract of tenancy, they are (1) that the tenant shall not deny the title of the landlord. and (2) that he shall not sublet the premises without the express consent of the landlord. In the face of these two Implied covenants even it the subletting had been made prior to the date when the Act was brought in to the in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the act of the petitioner was against the provisions of law. Subletting necessarily implies the continued occupation of the premises by the sub-tenant. In other words subletting is a continuous wrong committed by the tenant against his landlord. Consequently, the day an which the Act came into force in this territory, the tenant-petitioner would he deemed-to have committed this wrong on that date also. It is not the case of the petitioner that he at any time up till today obtained the written consent of the respondent- landlord. In the circumstances, the learned Appellate authority was rightly advised In holding that the wrong of subletting committed by the petitioner fell within the Mischief of S. 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act which entailed the consequence of an order of eviction being passed against him.