Baldev Raj vs Joginder Singh Ahluwalia and Others

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.—This revision petition has been filed by Baldev Raj tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, reversing the judgment of the Rent Controller and ordering his ejectment.

Briefly, the facts are that Joginder Singh Ahluwalia, landlord, filed an application for ejectment of the tenant inter alia on the grounds that he required the premises for his own use and occupation and that the latter had subject the same to Brij Lal. He also pleaded non-payment of rent. The petition was contested by the respondent who pleaded that the landlord did not require the premises for his own use and occupation and that he had subject with the written consent of the landlord. However, he tendered the rent on the first date of hearing.

The learned Rent Controller held that the petitioner did not require the premises for his own use and occupation and that the tenant had sublet a part of the premises with the written permission of the landlord. Consequently, he dismissed the application for ejectment.

The landlord went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority which upheld the finding of the Rent Controller that the landlord did not require the premises for his own use and occupation. However, it upset his finding on the second point and held that the tenant had sublet a part of the premises. Consequently, it accepted the appeal and ordered eiectment of the tenant. The tenant has come up in revision against the judgment of the Appellate Authority to this Court.

The only question that arises for determination is as to whether the tenant-petitioner had sublet a part of the premises with the written consent of the landlord-respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that permission was sought by the petitioner from the respondent which he gave vide his letter dated 30th December, 1970 Exhibit R. 2. He urges that in view of that permission, the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained.

I regret my inability to accept the contention of the learned Counsel. The alleged permission is contained in Exhibit R-2, the relevant, portion of which he reads as follows:-

Received your letter just now in which you have sought my permission to adjust your friend in the shop-cum-flat temporarily and to this. I have no objection.

From a perusal of the letter, it is evident that the landlord had permitted the petitioner to allow his friend to occupy a part of the permises temporarily. That does not show that he had permitted him to sublet it. In case the landlord intended that the premises could be sublet, that would have been stated specifically. The words "adjust your friend" and "temporarily" in the letter are significant. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the landlord allowed the tenant to sublet the premises to another person. I am, therefore, of the view that the finding of the Appellate Authority in this regard is unassailable. I, consequently, affirm the same.

For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner is, however, given two months time to vacate the permises which will be subject to his depositing all arrears of rent together with the rent for the cur-rent month in the Court of the Rent Controller within a period of fifteen days. As regards the rent for the next month, he shall deposit the same in the said Court by the 10th September, 1981. In case he fails to deposit the rent, as ordered above, he shall be liable to be ejected forthwith.