Sohan Lal and another vs Kamlesh Rani and another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but eviction order was passed in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

Kamlesh Rani and Satya Rani, landladies filed the ejectment Application against their tenant Sohan Lal in the year 1980, inter alia on the ground that the building bad become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises and had parted their possession in favour of Sada Nand, Petitioner, son of the said Sohan Lal. According to the landladies the tenant had transferred his tenancy rights in favour of Sada Nand, Petitioner, without their written consent. The said Sada Nand was exclusively occupying the demised premises and was carrying out the business therein. Sohan Lal, tenant, had left all his interest in the shop, in dispute, in his favour In the written statement filed by the tenant, it was denied that the shop was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was pleaded that the tenant was still occupying the shop, in dispute. It was denied that he had transferred his right of tenancy in favour of his son Sada Nand. The tenant himself was running the business in the shop, in dispute. The learned Rent Controller found that the landladies were still receiving the rent from the tenant Sohan Lal and acknowledged him as their tenant and also because Sada Nand was the son of the tenant and both of them are jointly running the business in the shop in dispute, in these circumstances, the question of subletting did not arise. The other plea that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation was also negatived. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed vide order dated August 19, 1981. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller on the question of subletting, but affirmed the finding as ragards the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Consequently, the eviction order was passed.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that there was no evidence whatsoever that the tenant had parted with the possession. He was still carrying on the business with his son Sada Nand in the demised premises as he had become old and, therefore, the question of subletting, on the facts and circumstances of this case, did not arise. According to the learned Counsel, the finding of the Rent Controller in this behalf was perfectly valid and the same has been set aside arbitrarily on surmises and conjectures In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Smt. Krishnawati Vs. Shri Hans Raj, Darshan Singh v. Kulwant Raj (1958) P.L.R. 650, Janab M.P. Azad v. Suresh 1983 (1) Rent C.R. 83, Dev Dutt Verma v. Ajit Singh 1965 Curr. L.J. 341, and Dr. Vijay Kumar and Others Vs. Raghbir Singh Anokh Singh,

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the landladies Respondents submitted that since Sada Nand the son of the tenant Sohan Lal was in exclusive possession of the premises, it was a clear case of subletting. The mere fact that Sada Nand happened to be the son of the tenant, it will not make any difference if the tenant was not in occupation of the demised premises. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Sita Devi v. Chaman Lal 1985 (2) Rent C.R. 357, Sunita Rani v. Subhash Chander (1986-1) P.L.R. 172, and Hans Raj v. Naval Kishore 1986 (2) Rent C.R. 617.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case law cited at the bar.

In the present case, the tenant Sohan Lal appeard in the witness-box as R. W. 1. He categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that he was running the business of selling books in the demised premises along with his son. No question was put to him that he was doing any other business or was in occupation of any other business premises. That being so, it could not be successfully argued that the tenant had parted with the possession of the demised premises. A different situation would had arisen if he was running separate business somewhere and the demised premises were handed over to his son where he was carrying his business exclusively. In the absence of any such evidence, it could not be held that the premises had been sublet by the tenant to his son Sada Nand. The approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wholly wrong and illegal. The mere fact that Sada Nand had a separate ration card though living in the same house did not mean that he was separate from his father and therefore, it also amounted to subletting. According to the Appellate Authority Sohan Lal, tenant, and his son Sada Nand are, not living jointly, rather they are living separately. Besides, they are running separate kitchen. From this finding, it could not be concluded that the demised premises had been sublet by the tenant. Admittedly, Sada Nand is the son of the tenant and the same business is being carried on therein which was carried on earlier at the time of the inception of the tenancy. Since the tenant was old, he is sitting with his son in the demised premises though the business as such is being carried on by his son. On these facts and circumstances, it could not be held that the tenant had sublet the premises.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application is restored with costs.