Naurang Lal vs Suresh Kumar

S.S. Dulat, J.—Suresh Kumar had let a shop in Hissar to Naurang Lal. On the 14th December, 1959 he made an application to the Rent Controller for the tenant''s eviction, alleging that the tenant had sublet a portion of the building. The Rent Controller was satisfied that the tenant had sublet a portion of the shop to two different parties on two occasions and he, therefore, ordered the tenant''s eviction. This finding was affirmed on appeal by the Appellate Authority. The tenant, Naurang Lal, then filed a revision petition in this Court which was heard by Harbans Singh, J. It was pointed out that the subletting found in the case related to two periods which had ended before the eviction petition was filed and that at the time of the petition, therefore, subletting did not subsist and it was on that ground urged that Section 13, sub-section (2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, on which reliance had been placed by the landlord, was inapplicable. The findings of fact were that the tenant had sublet a portion of the building to one party during June, 1957, and then again during January and February, 1958, and to another party for a period of about seven months from March to September, 1958, while the application for eviction, as I have mentioned, was made on the 14th December, 1959. It Was on these facts argued that the liability of a tenant to be evicted, because he has sublet the building or a portion of it, arises only if the subletting is still in existence when the application for his eviction is made, and reliance was placed on the language of the relevant clause in subsection (2) of Section 13 of the Act which runs thus--

(2)(ii) 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.

Harbans Singh, J., was apparently not impressed with this argument, but he found that there was a decision of this Court, Lekh Ram v. F. Chandcr Bhan-Rajinder Parkash ILR 1962 (1) P&H 641 : 1962 P.L.R. 197, which supported the submission. The learned Judge, therefore, thought it necessary to refer the tenant''s petition to a larger Bench for a more authoritative determination and the petition has, therefore, come before us.

The question is short. Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act renders a tenant liable to eviction if it is shown "that the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord sublet" a portion of the building let to him. It is clear 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 Act the tenant becomes liable to be evicted. In Lekh Ram v. Chander Bhan-Rajinder Parkash ILR 1962 (1) P&h 641 : 1962 P.L.R 197, however, Falshaw, J., sitting alone, took the view that the implication of this particular provision is that a subletting, which is to form the ground of ejectment, must be one which subsists at the time of the filing of the petition. This imiplication was read into the Act by the learned Judge on two grounds:

(1) that the Act was intended for the protection of tenants and it was unreasonable to think that any kind of subletting, however short its period and however old with reference to the eviction petition it may have been, could be a ground for ejectment; and

(2) that the landlord would normally become aware of a subletting in the case of urban (property and if he chooses to remain quiet for some time, he is by law to be considered as having waived his right.

When this case was argued before Harbans Singh, J., he was doubtful of the weight of this reasoning and my impression is the same. I say this because the language of the statute seems perfectly clear, and it is unwise and perhaps dangerous to read into it something which is not out there by the Legislature. The fact, that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is meant as a protection to tenants, does not by itself throw any light on the meaning of any particular provision of the Act, and that meaning has necessarily to be gathered from the language of the provision. Nor is the argument on the ground of waiver of much assistance, for waiver is a fact which must depend on the evidence in a particular case. As I read Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, it seems clear that once a tenant without the landlord''s written consent sublets any portion of the building let to him, he is in law liable to be evicted. I am not saying, of course, that in such a contingency the tenant may not be able to show that the landlord had in some manner, whether by waiver or otherwise, forfeited his right to evict him. All I am saying is that the tenant''s liability to eviction arises, once the fact of subletting is proved, and there is nothing in the Act to support the suggestion that the subletting must be in subsistence at the time the landlord applies for the tenant''s eviction. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the view adopted in Lakh Ram''s case. The petition before us is not being supported on any other ground and it must, in the circumstances, fail and I would dismiss it with costs.

Prem Chand Pandit, J.

I agree.