MOTI SAGAR Vs. RAM MURTI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant that faces an action for eviction on the ground of subletting is the revision petitioner before this Court. The landlord's requirement had been rejected by the Rent Controller and decision was reversed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE landlord had sought ejectment on the grounds of subletting and change of user and the ground that survived for consideration was only the case of subletting. The counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out to the nature of relationship between the tenant and the so -called sub tenants being respectively the son on the one hand and father and brother on the other hand. The contention on behalf of revision petition was that die father and brother had been merely associated in the business with the original tenant and tenant had not lost his exclusive possession in favour of either of the respondents No. 2 and 3. to be characterized as having created sub -tenancy in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3.

(3.) THE Appellant Court took a different decision from the fact that the tenant had actually admitted the possession of respondents No. 2 and 3 and if a person other than the tenant was found in possession of the demised premises, the burden of proof was essentially on such a person to explain the character of such possession, for otherwise, the subletting would have to be presumed. The Appellate Authority also laid emphasis on the evidence of RW -7 and RW -8, who had admitted that the respondents were normally separate from each other's business and there was no form of partnership between father and son. If the father and sons had separate independent business, according to him, the conclusion was inescapable that persons who are doing independent business such as the respondents No. 2 and 3 could not characterize their own business as on behalf of the first respondent. The Appellant Authority also found that the father had been doing business of sale of weight and measures and he had also adduced documentary proof by production of cash bills from persons, who had purchased articles from the father at the demised premises. The evidence of the Field Officer -RW1 had, according to the Appellate Court's reasoning, admitted that it was the brother who was actually doing his business in insurance and his occupation was also independent of the first respondent's possession. On such a line of reasoning, the Appellate Court found that the case of subletting had been established. While disposing of the appeal, the Appellate Authority had also considered the several decisions cited on both sides and reversed the finding rendered by the Rent Controller.