Smt. Jattan Devi through Raj Kumar Attorney vs Vidya Bhushan and Another

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The challenge here is by the landlady - Jattan Devi - to the impugned order of the appellate authority declining to order ejectment of respondent - Vidya Bhushan on the ground that he had sub-let it to respondent-Gurbax Singh and also for non-payment of arrears of rent. The demised, premises being a shop.

It was the finding of the appellate authority as also the rent controller that there was do relationship of landlord and tenant between Jattan Devi and Vidya Bhushsn It being held that though Jattan Devi was in fact the owner of the shop, the landlord was Nanak Chand who had inducted Vidhya Bhushan. It was further found that no arrears of rent were, due from the tenant-Vidya Bhushan as the amount had been paid to the said Nanak Chand.

The lower appellate authority clearly fell in error in holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as a reference to exhibit R/5, which is copy of the writing from the deed writer''s register of January 28,1985, would show that Gurbax Singh respondent had been inducted as a tenant in the shop of Jattan Davi, though through Nanak Chand. The executing this rent note, Nanak Chand was clearly acting for and on behalf of Jattan Devi. This can, by no means, be construed as clothing Nanak Chand with the status of landlord. He was clearly acting as an agent of Jattan Devi. There can thus be no escape from the conclusion that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between Jattan Devi and Gurbax Singh. This finding, however, renders unsustainable sub letting as a ground for ejectment as it shows Garbax Singh respondent having been inducted as a direct tenant under Jattan Devi.

What survives now is the matter pertaining to non-payment of arrears of rent. Admittedly, no receipt of any payment of rent by Gurbax Singh to Jattan Devi is forthcoming on record. According to Garbax Singh, rent for the period in question had been paid by him to Nanak Chand who hid given him a receipt for it too, but neither this receipt nor the said Nanak Chand has bean produced. This being so, it must indeed be held that Gurbax Singh was in arrears of rent. It is pertinent to note hero that there was no tender of rent by Gurbax Singh to Jittan Devi on the first date of hearing or at any time during the pendeacy of the proceedings This circumstances too, however, is of no avail to the petitioner-Jattan Devi in view of Sukhdev Raj v. Rukmani Devi and Ors. 1988 93 P. L. R. 679, where a Division Bench of this Court held that where the landlord has not accepted his alleged sub-tenant at his tenant nor sought his ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent, his eviction, if ordered on this ground, that is nonpayment of arrears of rent, would certainly prejudice his rights as he never got a chance to avail of the opportunity granted under the statute to tender rent on appearance before the rent controller.

Such thus being the settled position in law, no occasion is provided here for granting to the petitioner the relief sought

This revision petition is accordingly hereby dismissed. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.