Charan Singh and Another vs Patram

J.V. Gupta, C.J.—This is tenant''s petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rest Controller but the eviction order was passed in appeal.

Pat Ram, landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant from a room in a residential building situated at Kharar. It was alleged that Charan Singh, was tenant in the demised promised at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month Charan Singh had sublet the premises to his son Gurnam Singh who was in exclusive possession of the demised premises and, therefore, he was liable to be ejected. A plea was also takes that'' since the demised premises were a part of the residential building, the landlord bona fide required the same for his own use and occupation as he had a large family and the accommodation in his possession was insufficient to meet his requirement, The petition was contested alia on the ground that the premises were let out to both the father and the son, Thus, there was no question of sub-Jetting, as alleged. The landlord was in occupation of sufficient accommodation for his use and occupation. The Rent Controller found that the tenant Charan Singh was not proved to have walked out of the premises. The premises, in question, were a shop and not a residential building and that it was given on teat as a shop and the sub letting was not proved. As regards the ground of personal necessity, the learned Rent Controller found that it was an afterthought that it was raised at the last stage by way of amendment. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed, In appeal, the learned appellate authority reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the demised premises were rented out only to Charan Singh and not to the father and the son, as claimed by the, tenant. It was further found that the tenant Charan Singh had taken on rent another building from one Gyani where he was doing the business of washing clothes etc Thus, from the facts of the present case, it was held that the demised premises were in exclusive possession of Gurnam Singh son of the tenant and that he was the proprietor of the business being done in the said shop. A further finding was also given that it was clear that Charan Singh had left the possession of the premises by taking other shop on rent from one Gyani as admitted by him and he had handed over the exclusive possession to him. In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submited that the mere taking another room for doing business by the tenant Charan Singh does not mean that he was no mere in occupation of the demised premises According to the learned counsel, it was an allied business which was being done there and, therefore, both the father and the son are in occupation of the demised premises, According to the learned counsel, the findings of the appellate authority in this behalf are wrong and illegal. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Kihan Chand v. Gobind Ram 1985 88 P. L. R. 194.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the tenant had taken another shop for doing his business, he was no more in occupation of the demised premises. Moreover, the business done in the demised premises is owned by his son only and ho was in exclusive possession thereof. Thus, argued the learned counsel the finding of the appellate authority in this behalf was perfectly valid and could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction In support of the contention, reliance was placed on Prem Kumar v. Yash Pal 1985 87 P. L. R. 525 and Smt. Sita Devi v. Chaman Lal 1983 87 P. L. R. 525.

After hearing the learned counsel for the patties and going through the evidence on the record, I do sot find any illegality, in the findings of the appellate authority as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction.

The case set up by the tenant was that the premises were let out to both the father and the son which fact was belied when the notice was given on behalf of the tenant to the landlord vide copy Exhibit A 1 This notice was issued only on behalf of Charasn Singh through his learned counsel It is therefore, evident that the tenant bad failed to prove that the demised premises were let out to both the father and the son if the premises were let out to Charan Singh only and he was no more in occupation of the same and they were occupied by his son only who is the proprietor of the business being done these and the tenant is in occupation of another shop rented out by him from one Gyani, it is a clear case of subletting. Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises. Provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and the undertaking in writing, that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession of the premises would be handed over to the landlord are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month.