YASH PAL Vs. SARDUL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but the eviction order was passed in appeal.

(2.) SARDUL Singh, landlord, filed the ejectment application for the eviction of his tenant on January 6, 1982, from the shop, in dispute, inter alia on the ground that (Mohinder Singh) had sublet the shop to respondent Yash Pal, without his written consent. He also pleaded that the said Yash Pal was in actual possession of the shop, in the capacity of sub-tenant and that the tenant Mohinder Singh was in arrears of rent and on that account as well, he was liable to be ejected. Mohinder Singh, tenant, did not appear to contest the ejectment application and was, thus, proceeded exparte. The alleged sub-tenant, Yash Pal, appeared and filed his written statement. He controverted the allegations of the landlord and pleaded that he was a direct tenant on the demised premises. According to Yash Pal, he was paying the rent to the landlord and the payment of the rent had been entered at the back of the rent note. It was alleged that the said rent note was in possession of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller negatived the pleas of the landlord on both the scores. It was found that the landlord had failed to prove that Mohinder Singh was the tenant and that there did not exist the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; rather Yash Pal was a direct tenant on the demised premises. As regards the non-payment of rent, the learned Rent Controller found that since the landlord alleged Yash Pal, respondent, to be a subtenant, he was not bound to tender the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing thus, no order of ejectment could be passed on that ground. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed vide order dated July 30, 198. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller that Yash Pal was a direct tenant of the landlord and Mohinder Singh had nothing to do with demised premises. Thus, the question of sub-letting did not arise. As regards the non-payment of rent, the learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that Yash Pal was bound to pay or tender the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing and since he had failed to do so, he was liable to be evicted. Consequently, the ejectment order was passed against him on January 25, 1986.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that once Yash Pal, respondent, claimed to be the direct tenant he was bound to tender the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. Since he failed to do so, the eviction order has been rightly passed against him.