Amrit Lal vs Brij Mohan Lal and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition.

Landlords (Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein) filed an ejectment petition against their tenant (petitioner herein) and against one Gurbachan Singh (Respondent No. 3 herein) on the ground that the tenant has sublet the demised premises to respondent No. 3 without the written consent of the landlords. The ejectment was also sought on the ground that the demised premises were let out for the purpose of embroidery work, whereas at the time of filing of the ejectment petition, the same were being used for doing tailoring work.

The ejectment petition was contested by the petitioner as well as by respondent No. 3 who in their written statement denied the ground of subletting. They rather stated that the tenant is in exclusive possession of the demised premises and is still doing the business therein. With regard to respondent No. 3, it was stated that respondent No. 3, is sometimes called to do the sewing and stitching embroided work on piece-work basis. It was also denied that there was any change of business.

The ejectment petition was allowed by the Rent Controller on the ground of sub-letting On appeal by the tenant, the appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller. The orders of the Authorities below are now being challenged in the present revision petition.

Mr. Viney Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no positive evidence to show that respondent No. 3 was in exclusive possession of the premises or the tenant has parted with the legal possession.

Mr. Puran Chand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted that both the Authorities below on appreciation of entire evidence on the record, have found as a matter of fact that the tenant has parted with the possession of the premises, and therefore, no interference is called for in the revision petition.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the statement of witnesses, I find that there is no merit in the revision petition. The landlords specifically pleaded ''sub-letting'' whereas the tenant as well as the sub-tenant controverted the plea by denying sub letting. The tenant rather admitted the presence of respondent No. 3, but stated that he is doing the work on his behalf. The Rent Controller during the pendency of ejectment petition, appointed one Mr. Jaswant Singh Khaira, Advocate, as Local Commissioner in order to determine as to who is in possession of the premises. The Local Commissioner went to the spot and found that respondent No. 3 was in possession and on his asking, respondent No. 3 told him that he is in possession of the premises for the last 11 months. The Local Commissioner was examined as AW-1, who not only proved his report but also stated that respondent No. 3 was doing the work of tailoring. There are other circumstances also which clearly point out that the tenant has parted with the possession and respondent No. 3 is in exclusive possession of the demised premises. Sub-tenant, Gurbachan Singh, while appearing as RW-5 admitted that he had been working as tailor in the city for the last 16-17 years and had been doing that work on a wooden platform in front of shop of one Ami Chand. The said wooden platform was removed by the order of the Municipal Committee. This part of the statement clinches the case of the landlords. Gurbachan Singh came into possession of the premises in dispute after the wooden platform was removed by the Municipal Committee where he was doing the tailoring work. In case, the sub-tenant was doing the tailoring work on behalf of the tenant, this fact could have been proved by the tenant by producing account-books or any voucher or any other document showing that any payment was made by him to respondent No. 3 for the tailoring work which was alleged to have been done by respondent No. 3 on behalf of the tenant. The tenant however failed to bring any such evidence so as to prove this fact. It is also to be remembered that a party in possession of best evidence which would throw light on the issue in controversy, if withholds it, the Court can always draw an adverse inference against him. Thus, viewed from any angle, I find that the appellate Authority was right in holding that the petitioner-tenant has sub-let the premises to respondent No. 3. The explanation offered by the tenant that respondent No. 3 is working on his behalf in the demised premises is absolutely unsatisfactory and thus, cannot be accepted.

Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the petitioner is allowed three months time to vacate the premises provided he pays/deposits the entire arrears to rent within one month from today.