Ram Kishan vs Smt. Shanti Devi Bihani and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This is tenant''s revision directed against the orders of the Authorities below whereby the tenant was ordered to be ejected on the ground that he has sublet the premises to respondents No. 7 to 9.

Originally, the shop in dispute which is situated in Noharia Bazar, Sirsa, was owned by Hazari Mai who had let out the shop to Ram Kishan (petitioner herein) vide rent note dated 14.7.1955. After the death of Hazari Mal, the shop in dispute was inherited by Sita Ram, Nagar Mal and Sagar Mal. Sita Ram and Nagar Mal filed ejectment petition u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Ram Kishan. Sagar Mal one of the sons of Hazari Mal was impleaded as one of the respondents. Tenant contested the petition and asserted in his written statement that he continued to be in possession of the shop He raised certain other pleas. Sub-tenant did not file any written statement. Tenant, though in his written statement, had taken specific plea that he is in possession of the shop in dispute, yet in evidence, he tried to prove that the sub-tenants are carrying on the business in partnership with him. Rent Controller, after appreciating the entire evidence on the record, concluded that in the shop one of the sub-tenants, namely, Jaswant is carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Kalu Ram Kaj Kumar whereas the tenant himself has shifted to some other premises situated in Chandni chowk Bazar, Sirsa and carrying on the business of sale of cloth under the name and style of M/s. Chawla Cloth House. The Rent Controller also found that the tenant has completely lost control of the premises and, therefore, is liable to be ejected. Tenant preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority who concurred with the reasoning advanced by the Rent Controller and, therefore, dismissed the appeal. Tenant has now preferred the present civil revision challenging the orders of the Authorities below.

Mr. H. L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has not contested the finding with regard to the possession of the sub-tenants over the shop in dispute. He has only contended that the landlord has not proved on the record that the sub-tenant was inducted for valuable consideration. His precise submission was that in order to obtain an order of ejectment, landlord has not only to prove that some other person apart from the tenant was in exclusive possession of the premises let out to him but it was for valuable consideration. In support of this argument, he has relied upon two Supreme Court judgments ; (i) Smt. Krishna Wanti v. Hans Raj 1975 ARC.J. 164 and M/s Delhi Stationers and Printers v. Rajendra Kumar JT 1990 (1) 372.

On the other hand, Mr Balwant Singh Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that both the Courts below have returned a finding of fact which should not be interfered with by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in this civil Revision. Both the Courts below, on appreciation of the evidence on record, have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the shop in dispute was let out to Ram Krishan tenant who has sub-let the same to one of the sub-tenants, namely, Jaswant who is carrying on the business in the premises under the name and style of M/s. Kalu Ram Raj Kumar. This fin ing has not been challenged by the petitioner before me. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that subletting is not for valuable consideration is concerned, it is to be borne in mind that it is usually impossible for the landlord to produce specific evidence to prove the subletting because sub tenancy can hardly be proved by direct evidence. In most cases, an inference has to be drawn from the facts of each case. If a tenant shifts his business to some other place and allows another person to run his own shop, it would not be wrong to presume that he has sublet the premises even though the sub-tenant may be a relation of the tenant. It is difficult for the landlord to prove payment of rent by a sub-tenant to the tenant. Where tenant is out of possession, there is clear parting with possession and it is for the tenant to prove that possession was with tie sub-tenant as his licensee or care-taker or in such like manner. Otherwise the presumption would be that he had in fact, sublet the same. In the present case, the tenant though took up the plea that he is carrying on his business in the shop in dispute but he failed to prove the same. It was never his case that he is carrying on the business in partnership or sub tenant is a licensee or a care-taker. In absence of such a plea, both Authorities below rightly passed an order of ejectment on the ground of sub-letting In Krishnawanti''s case (supra), the shop was let out to wife and it was alleged that she had sublet the same to her husband It was found therein that the wife as well as the sub-tenant were living together as husband and wife and the business in shop was carried on by the wife with the help of her husband.

In the case of M/s. Delhi Stationers and Printers (supra), tenant allowed the other tenant to use kitchen and latrine and, therefore, in these circumstances, it was held that the tenant had not transferred the exclusive right to enjoy kitchen and latrine.

Both these judgments have no application to the facts of the present case and are clearly distinguishable.

Consequently, this civil revision is dismissed. However, tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided he pays the entire arrears of rent including that of three months within- a period of one month from today. No costs.