Lakshmi Nandan vs Triloki Nath and Others

V.K. Mehrotra, J.—This appeal is by the Defendant who is a tenant in a residential house in Haldaur Pargana Daranagar district Bijnor. A suit, inter alia, for the ejectment of the Appellant was filed by the Plaintiff Respondents on the grounds that the Appellant was in arrears of rent due; that he had damaged the premises in his tenancy and that he had sub-let the same to one Padam Singh who was impleaded as Defendant No. 2 in the suit. The Appellant denied that he was in arrears of payment of rent or that he had damaged the premises under his tenancy or further that he had sub-let it to Padam Singh. Parties led their evidence on a consideration whereof the trial court concluded in favour of the Defendant on the issues except on that relating to the premises having been sub-let by the Appellant to Padam Singh. The trial court appraised the evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that Padam Singh was in exclusive possession of the premises. Consequently, it decreed the suit for the ejectment of the Appellant on the ground of having sublet the premises in his tenancy to Padam Singh.

Aggrieved, the Appellant filed an appeal. In that appeal, the various findings of the trial court were affirmed by the lower appellate court with the result that the decree for the ejectment of the Appellant from the disputed premises was upheld by the lower appellate court on the ground that the Appellant had sub-let the premises to Padam Singh. While dealing with the question of sub-letting, the lower appellate court reappraised the evidence and affirmed the conclusion of the trial court that Padam Singh was in exclusive possession of the premises. The Defendant thereafter filed the present appeal.

Appearing for the Appellant, Sri N.C. Rajvanshi has urged that even assuming that the finding that the Appellant was in exclusive possession of the premises in dispute was a finding which was binding upon this Court in a Second Appeal, in law it will not establish that the Defendant had sub-let the premises in his tenancy so as to render himself liable for ejectment therefrom. According to the learned Counsel, the two essential ingredients for establishing subtenancy were the proof of exclusive possession of the sub-tenant and also of circumstances enabling the court to conclude with fair amount of reasonableness that the relationship of lessor and lessee existed between the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant. The latter ingredient, according to his submission, has not been found to exist in the instant case so that the decree for the ejectment of the Appellant on the ground of subletting could not be sustained. There is force in this submission of the learned Counsel. In Smt. Krtshnawanti v. Hans Raj 1975 All IRCJ 164, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the question of ejectment of a tenant on the ground of subletting. That was a case which arose out of the Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958). The Supreme Court laid down that "when eviction is sought on the ground of sub-letting (sic) is on the land-lord. If the landlord prima facie shows that the occupant was in exclusive possession of the premises let out for valuable consideration, it would then be for the tenant to rebut the evidence."

The Supreme Court found on the facts of the case that the landlord-Respondent had produced no evidence to show such sub-letting inspite of the tenant''s denial in the written statement of any subletting. In Ram Swarup v. Ram Niwas 1968 AWR 357 , a learned Single Judge of this Court took the view that while it is true that it was difficult to prove by direct evidence a contract of sub-letting, yet it did not mean that the burden upon the Plaintiff of proving the sub-letting is obviated. The Plaintiff has to bring in evidence which would furnish material from which a legitimate inference with certainty could be drawn that there was a relationship of lessor and lessee between the chief-tenant and some other person found in possession of the premises let out. It is true that it is not necessary to establish a contract of sub-tenancy as held by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ram Bharose Vs. Ajeet Kumar and Another, , yet it is necessary that some circumstances must be found by the court apart from the fact of exclusive possession of the alleged subtenant from which the relationship of lessor and lessee between the tenant and the alleged sub tenant can be said to be established to a reasonable extent.

In the present case, the two courts below have concluded that the Appellant had sub-let the premises to Padam Singh only upon proof of the fact that Padam Singh was in exclusive possession thereof. Their attention was not drawn towards the other essential ingredients for the proof of sub-tenancy as laid down by the Supreme Court and by this Court in the cases referred to earlier. In this state of affairs, it must be, concluded that the decree for the ejectment of the Appellant on the count of alleged sub-letting cannot be sustained.

In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The decree of the courts below directing the ejectment of the Appellant from the premises in dispute is set aside. The suit is dismissed regarding the relief of ejectment of the Defendant-appellant. The parties shall bear their own costs.