KESHO RAM Vs. MOHAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but set aside in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE landlord-petitioner sought the ejectment of his tenant Labhu Ram by filing ejectment application dated 17th August, 1983, on the ground that he had purchased the demised premises from the Janki Dass Trust on 10th October, 1970, and, therefore had become the landlord qua Labhu Ram, the tenant, with respect to the demised premises. He filed an application earlier for ejectment on 12th April, 1979, in which an objection was raised by the tenant that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, as there was no valid transfer in the favour of Kesho Ram, the landlord. The said ejectment application was dismissed on 26th March, 1981 (Copy Ex.R.5) on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, late, the necessary amendment was sought in the sale deed, and, consequently, the present application for ejectment was filed on 17th August, 1983. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenant Labhu Ram had sublet the premises to Smt. Phulan Devi and Ramesh Kumar, respondent Nos. 9 and 10; that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation as the accommodation in his occupation, being only one room, was inadequate for the large family he had, consisting of five sons out of whom three were of marriageable age, and a wife, and that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises in dispute for a continuous period of four months without any reasonable cause.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller found that Labhu Ram, tenant, before shifting to H. No. 37/6, Mohalla No. 26, had transferred his right under lease to Ramesh Kumar and Smt. Phulan Devi without the consent of the landlord and, thus, sublet the premises in dispute to them. The other grounds taken by the landlord were negatived on the ground that in the earlier ejectment application (Copy Ex.R.5), these grounds were taken and since that application was dismissed vide copy Ex.R.7 dated 26th March, 1981 the said findings operated as a para/s 14 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Consequently, on the basis of subletting, order of eviction was passed. Aggrieved with that the tenant filed an appeal in which the landlord filed cross-objections challenging the finding of the Rent Controller on the ground of bonafide requirement. The Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on the question of subletting and came to the conclusion that keeping in view the proximity of relationship between the parties, i.e. the tenant and the alleged sub-lessess, it could not be said that Smt. Phulan Devi and Ramesh Kumar were paying consideration to the heirs of Labhu Ram or that they had been paying so to Labhu Ram during his life-time. According to the learned Appellate Authority there was nothing on record to show that the heirs of Labhu Ram had been receiving any consideration from Smt. Phulan Devi and Ramesh Kumar and that at most, the tenants merely allowed them to use the premises without parting with its possession.