AMIR AHMED Vs. USUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the respondent for eviction of the appellant from the premises consisting of half portion of the 'Barsali' and kitchen, latrine, bath room, chowk and chabutra on the ground floor and a room and 'Delana' on the first floor. In the said suit the respondent sought eviction of the appellant on three grounds, ramely, (i) default in payment of rent: (ii) causing damage to the premises, and (iii) sub -letting the half portion of the 'Barsali' by the appellant to one Ramzan without the consent of the land lord. The Munsif, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur, by his judgment and decree dated May 15, 1980, decreed the said suit of the respondent and passed a decree for eviction on the ground that the appellant had sublet a part of the premises, namely, half portion of the 'Barsali' to Ramzan without the consent of the respondent. The said decree passed by the Munsiff has been affirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Jodhpur, by his judgment and decree dated November 5, 1980. Hence, this second appeal.

(2.) UNDER clause (e) of Sub -Section (i) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Evictiou) Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') the land -lord is entitled to evict the tenant if the tenant has assigred sub -let or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without the permission of the landlord The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant can be said to have sublet or parted with the possession of any part of the premises without the permission of the land -lord.

(3.) SHRI A K. Mathur, the learned Counsel for the respondent, has submitted that even though on the basis of the evidence on record, it may not be possible to hold that the appellant had sublet the half portion of the 'Barsali' to Ramzan, but the said evidence shows that the appellant had parted with the possession of half portion of the 'Barsali' in favour of Ramzan, and, therefore, a decree for eviction has rightly been passed against the appellant under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. The submission of Shri Mathur is that where the tenant, while retaining the possession of the premises with himself shares the possession of the premises with some other person, he can be said to have parted with the possession of the premises for the purpose of Section (13) 1) of the Act. I support of his aforesaid submission, Shri Mathur has placed reliance on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Bhagwat Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad and Anr. 1969 WLN 351