Kashmiri Lal vs Banwari Lal and Others

P.C. Pandit, J.—This is a tenant''s petition filed u/s 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against the order of the Appellate Authority reversing on appeal the order of the Rent Controller by which the landlord''s application for the petitioner''s ejectment had been dismissed.

The premises in dispute is a shop situate in the Municipal area of Abohar, District Ferozepore. Banwari Lal, respondent No. I, had claimed the eviction of Kashmiri Lal, tenant, on a number of grounds, but in the present petition we are are concerned only with one of them namely, that of subletting.The case of the landlord, as put in the ejectment application, was that the tenant had, in the first instance, sublet the shop to Bhagwan Singh, respondent No. 2 on 14th September, 1962, who occupied the same for a period of about six months, and then the landlord sublet it to Messrs. Jagdish General Stores, respondent No. 3. It was also stated that the subletting was done without the written consent of the landlord,

The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord was not able to establish this ground and, consequently, his application for eviction was dismissed. On appeal, however, the Appellate Authority reversed this finding and ordered the ejectment of the tenant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Authority in his order has observed thus

The best type of evidence on the point having been withheld and the circumstances clearly pointing out to the conclusion that Kashmiri Lal was no longer in occupation of the disputed premises, there was no reason why Banwari Lal landlord and his witnesses should have been disbelieved for asserting that the premises had been sublet by Kashmiri Lal first to Bhagwan Singh and thereafter to Messrs. Jagdish General Store.

This finding, according to the learned counsel, was opposed to the case of the landlord as set out in his petition for eviction and the evidence produced by him in support thereof. The landlord had stated in the petition that the tenant was in possession of the premises and the witnesses produced by him deposed that Messrs. Jagdish General Stores were not in possession of the shop. A.W. 1, Ved Parkash, had said that "at present Messrs. Bright ways carry on laundry business in the shop in dispute...Messrs. Jadish General Store now carries on his business in a neighboring shop." Similarly, A.W. 2, Nand Lal, had deposed..."At present one washerman sits in the shop-in dispute." The argument of the learned counsel was that if the sub-tenant, Messrs, Jagdish General Stores, were not in possession and. it was the petitioner who was in occupation of the shop, then there could not be any subletting.

There is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If the landlord had stated in the petition for eviction that the tenant was in possession of the premises, obviously, he was meaning that the tenant was in possession through his sub-tenants. It is true that the two witnesses produced by the landlord had stated that Messrs. Jagdish General Stores were not in possession of the shop in dispute, but they were deposing to the state of affairs which existed on the date when they actually gave evidence in Court. Both these witnesses had, however, categorically asserted that the petitioner had sublet the shop in dispute to Bhagwan Singh, respondent No. 2, who left it after a period of about six months and then the tenant gave the same to Messrs. Jagdish General Stores, respondent No. 3. This evidence has been believed by the learned Appellate Authority, who found as a fact that the petitioner had sublet the premises without the written permission of the landlord. ''Subletting'' is one of the grounds for eviction and is mentioned in section 13(2) (ii) (a) of the Rent Restriction Act, which says-

That the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord -

(a) transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof:

Or

* *

While interpreting this provision, a Bench of this Court, to which I was also a party in Naurang Lal v. Suresh Kumar (1964) P.L.R. 505, held-

That the tenant''s liability to eviction arises once the fact of subletting is proved, and there is nothing in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act to support the suggestion that the subletting must be in subsistence at the time the landlord applies, for the tenant''s eviction.

Held, also, that as far as the point of time is concerned, the only reference is to the ''commencement of the Act'', and once it is shown that there has been subletting even of a portion of the building by the tenant subsequent to the enactment of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, the tenant becomes liable to be evicted.

In the present case, subletting without the written consent of the landlord first to respondent No. 2 and then to respondent No. 3 has been proved. It does not matter if during the trial of the petition for eviction the sub-tenant leave the premises. Once it is established that the tenant had sublet the shop during the course of his tenancy, his liability to eviction arises. That being so, the order of eviction pissed by the Appellate Authority is in accordance with law and not open to challenge.

The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. The tenant is, however, granted six weeks'' time from today to vacate the premises in dispute.