Shiv Parshad vs Brij Lal

Falshaw, C.J.—This is a revision petition filed by a tenant against an order for ejectment passed by the Appellate Authority after the landlord''s petition had been dismissed by the Rent Controller.

The only question involved is whether it was established that the tenant had sublet a part of the premises in dispute which comprise a house in the town of Jagadhri. The relevant facts are that at the time when the landlords'' petition was instituted two brothers of the tenant''s wife were occupying the upper floor of the house, though it was stated in the tenant''s evidence at the time when he appeared as witness that his brothers-in-law had left and gone to live with their parents who had by then obtained some accommodation However, the fact of the alleged sub-tenants having left before the landlord''s petition was decided would not make any difference if any subletting or parting by the tenant of his tenancy rights in respect of any portion of the premises was established.'' The learned Rent Controller found that in view of the relationship of the alleged sub-tenants with the tenant there could not possibly be any presumption that they were paying rent and therefore held that no subletting was proved. The learned Appellate Authority, however, held that subletting was a reasonable inference from the facts.

In my opinion the view taken by the learned Rent Controller was proper and no inference could be drawn in the present case beyond that the tenant had allowed his brothers-in-law to live in a portion of the house as licencees on account of their close relationship. I took a similar view in Civil Revision No. 416 of 1962, Bhim Sain v. Dr. Parshotam Lal Kapur C. R. No. 416 of 1962, decided on the 30th of September, 1963 in a case in which the tenant''s wife''s sister and brother-in-law were living in part of the leased premises and I adverted to the difference in this respect between the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and the similar Delhi Act. The words used in the Punjab Act are "that the tenant has transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof" while the Delhi Act contained the additional words "or otherwise parted with possession". From this it is clear that for a landlord to succeed in this State some kind of contructual relationship between the tanant and the alleged sub-tenants must be established which does not exist in the present case. I accordingly accept the revision petition and dismiss the landlord''s ejectment petition, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.