Parmeshri Das vs Smt. Sita Devi and others

D.S. Tewatia, J.—Petitioner-landlord sought eviction of Rup Lal and Janak Raj son of Rup Lal and their sub-tenants namely Charan Das, Krishan Lal and Dwarka Das sons of Chuni Lal, inter alia, on the ground that Rup Lal and Janak Raj had sublet the premises to the other three respondents without permission of the landlord.

The case set up on behalf of the sub-tenants was that they were not sub-tenants but were the direct tenants of the landlord as a result of an oral tenancy which came about when at their request the landlord reduced the rent from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 43/- in April, 1960.

The Rent Controller held that as per averment in the written statement of Rup Lal tenant, the premises had been sublet by him to respondents 3 to 5. The Rent Controller further held that sub-tenants had failed to establish direct tenancy and that the subletting had been without prior permission of the landlord in writing.

On the basis of the said finding, the Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered the eviction of the respondents.

Sub-tenants challenged their eviction in appeal. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal with the observations that It had been established on the record that the landlord had given implied permission in writing for subletting.

The prior permission for subletting was implied by the Appellate Authority from two circumstances, (i) that the landlord must have been aware of the fact that the sub-tenants were in occupation of the premises; and (ii) that the fact that ho accepted rent from Chuni Lal father of respondents 3 to 5 vide receipt Ex. Ax, tant-amounted to an implied permission in writing for subletting. The Appellate Authority dismissed the application for eviction. This order has been impugned by the landlord in this revision petition.

Mr. Kapur, learned counsel for the petitioner, or the strength of the following observations of Sarkaria, J. as he then was in Shambhu Dutt and another v. Balwant Rai (1968) 70 P.L.R. 790, urged that there could not be any such thing as implied consent in writing. The consent to sublet has to be clear and cogent and in writing :--

It is a well settled cannon of construction that effect must be given, wherever possible to each and every word, clause, and sentence of a statute. When the Legislature uses the the adjective ''written'' to specify the nature of the ''consent'' it will be presumed that any other kind of consent i.e. merely by word of mouth, acquiescence or conduct was necessarily excluded. The Legislature is supposed to be precise and no words in a statute arc to be deemed redundant or supperfluous. To hold otherwise would render the word ''written'' immediately preceding the word ''consent'' in the above quoted clause of section 13(2) (ii), nugatory. In my opinion, therefore, there can be no estoppel against these express and clear provision of the statute.

Mr. Sarin, counsel for the contesting respondents 3 to 5 however, referred me to an unreported decision of this Court in Civil Revision No. 63 of 1961 (decided by G.D. Khosla C.J.) (Charanjit Lal etc v. Smt. Bhagwanti etc.) C.R. No. 63 of 1961, decided on 11th July, 1961 and sought support for the decision of the Appellate Authority from the said decision.

Before considering the ratio of the two decisions that have been cited above it would be necessary to notice the nature of the writing that has been pressed into service on behalf of the respondents to be accepted as the requisite writing envisaged in the statutory provision for subletting, There are two receipts Exs. AX and AY. These receipts recite the acceptance of rent by the landlord from the tenant and not from the sub tenants. Only on one of the receipts i.e. Ex. AY the word ''Chuni Lal'' is written on the back. From that it was argued on behalf of the contesting respondents that the rent in question must have been paid by Chuni Lal as his name finds mention on the back of the receipt.

For one thing. Chuni Lal was neither the tenant nor subtenant. He was father of the sub-tenants. It could not necessarily be inferred that rent was being paid on behalf of sub-tenants by Chuni Lal and not on behalf of the tenants as the receipt expressly mentioned that the payment of the rent was by the tenants.

The facts of the case that has been relied upon on behalf of the contesting respondents are entirely different. That was a case in which the tenant paid arrears of rent. He took money in the presence of the landlord from sub-tenants and paid the amount and got expressly mentioned in the receipt that he had taken the money from the sub-tenants.

The position herein is entirely different. With respect, I entirely concur in the interpretation put upon the provisions of Section 13(2) (ii) (a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act by Sarkaria J. and hold that the receipts in question do not satisfy at all the requirement of the said provision and cannot be considered to be permission in writing on behalf of the landlord for subletting the premises.

For the reasons aforementioned, the revision petition is allowed with no order as to costs and the judgment of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller is restored.

The respondents shall vacate the premises on or before 10.10.1983 and deliver vacant possession thereof to the petitioner-landlord Parmeshwari Dass on or before 10.10.1983.