RAM SARUP Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EJECTMENT petition was filed against the tenant on the ground that he had sub-let the premises to his son. The tenant died when the proceedings were pending before the Rent Controller and the son of the tenant continued the proceedings as the next heir on the plea that he had inherited the tenancy. The Rent Controller passed order of eviction against the son of the tenant on the reasoning that sub-letting to son had been established and, therefore, even if the subtenant had become the tenant later on, it did not matter. The alleged sub-tenant, who became the tenant in view of the death of the tenant, went up in appeal and the Appellate Authority held that in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Gian Devi v. Jiwan Kumar, AIR 1985 SC 796, the tenant was heritable, therefore, the son of the tenant, who was alleged to be the sub-tenant, became a direct tenant. Since he became a direct tenant, it was held that he could not be evicted from the premises. As a result he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. This is landlord's revision.

(2.) SHRI R.L. Sarin vehemently contends that once a ground of eviction is established in favour of the landlord no supervening facts can take away that right of the landlord. This broad-based argument, to my mind, is not applicable on the peculiar facts of this case. The alleged sub-tenant has become a tenant in his own right during the pendency of the proceedings. Now he cannot be held to be a sub-tenant. Otherwise the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Devi's case (supra) would become meaningless. Accordingly, I am of the view that the decision of the Appellate Authority is perfectly just and legal and this revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.