Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 523 (PNJ)

S. Gurmukh Singh v. Sukhcharanjit Kaur

2000-05-16

R.L.ANAND

body2000
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. This is a landlords revision and it has been directed against the order dated 2.11.1999, passed by the appellate authority under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called "the Act") vide which the learned appellate authority affirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 19.2.1999 vide which the learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application of the peti tioner S.Gurmukh Singh, filed under Section 13 of the Act against the Smt. Sukhcharanjit Kaur and her brother S.Gurminder Singh. 2. The ejectment was sought before the Rent Controller on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-tenancy. 3. On the contrary, the stand of the respondents was that respondent No. 1 has never sub let the demised premises in favour of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1 the main tenant, still has the control of the demised premises. 4. Parties lead evidence in support of their case. The learned Rent Controller decided issue No. 2 against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. The petitioner-landlord filed an appeal under Section 15 of the Act which was also dismissed by the learned appellate authority for the reasons given in paras No. 14, 15 and 16 of its judgment.:- "14. The contention of the appellant/landlord that respondent No. 1 Sukhcharanjit Kaur has sublet the demised premises in favour of respondent No. 2 Gurminder Singh, also remained unproved before the learned Rent Controller. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention towards the statement of AW5 Santokh Singh, Labour Inspector who has stated that Gurminder Singh is running a General Store in the shop in dispute. However, to my mind this evidence or the statement of AW5 Santokh Singh, Labour Inspector, in no manner helps the appellant/landlord in proving the alleged subletting by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2. There is no evidence at all regarding the payment of any rent by respondent No. 2 (the alleged sub-tenant) to the original tenant respondent No. 1 Sukhcharanjit Kaur. It is understandable that the payment of rent by a sub tenant to the tenant, is normally a secret arrangement between the two. But at the same time in order to succeed in rent application on the ground of subletting the appellant/landlord must prove the alleged subletting by leading cogent evidence. It is understandable that the payment of rent by a sub tenant to the tenant, is normally a secret arrangement between the two. But at the same time in order to succeed in rent application on the ground of subletting the appellant/landlord must prove the alleged subletting by leading cogent evidence. In the present case, the appellant/landlord has failed to discharge its onus. The appellant/applicants main witness AW5 Santokh Singh, Labour Inspector has stated that on 26.7.1994 licence to run a General Store, has been granted in favour of Gurminder Singh and Sukhcharanjit Kaur which shows that both the respondents are running the General Store in the shop in dispute, jointly. Thus, being the position, it cannot be said that respondent No. 1 has parted with the possession of the shop in question in favour of respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 1 has just walked out from the shop in dispute or has delivered its possession to respondent No. 2, exclusively. In a case Raghbir Singh v. Resham Singh, (1998-2)119 P.L.R. 804, it has been held by a single Bench of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court that in order to constitute subletting it must be proved that the tenant has parted with the possession of the whole of the premises or a part thereof, for valuable consideration. In the present case no evidence has been led by the appellant/landlord that the alleged sub tenant has further paid any rent to the original tenant. In another case Firm Bali Ram Nihal Singh and Ors. v. Panna Lal, (1993-3)105 P.L.R. 269, the Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Jhanji of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, has held that test to determine subletting is whether the tenant has walked out of the premises and has handed over its exclusive possession and control to the sub tenant. Where the tenants remained in possession of the shop in question, subletting cannot be held to have been proved. In the present case the facts are similar. The respondents are brother and sister and they are jointly running general store in the demised premises, as has been proved by the applicant appellant witness AW5 Santokh Singh, Labour Inspector. Where the tenants remained in possession of the shop in question, subletting cannot be held to have been proved. In the present case the facts are similar. The respondents are brother and sister and they are jointly running general store in the demised premises, as has been proved by the applicant appellant witness AW5 Santokh Singh, Labour Inspector. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that before the learned Rent Controller, the appellant failed to prove the ground of alleged subletting by respondent No. 1 Sukhcharanjit Kaur in favour of respondent No. 2 Gurminder Singh. The learned Lower Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record on this issue and decided the same against the applicant-appellant. The lower Court findings on both the issues are upheld. 15. No other points were raised during the course of arguments. 16. In view of the evidence of the lower Court file, the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller on different issues, the points raised in appeal and my findings recorded thereon in the preceding paras, I hold that the lower Court judgment/order is well reasoned and balanced one. There is no ground to interfere with it. There is no merit in the appeal. The lower Court findings on all the issues are upheld and the appeal is ordered to be dismissed with costs. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 500/- Memo of costs be prepared. Lower Court file be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to the record room." In this manner, the present revision has been filed by the landlord. 5 I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the record of the case. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that concurrent findings of fact are based on proper appreciation of evidence and in these circumstances, these cannot be disturbed in the present revision. 7. Be that as it may, the argument which was advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 had parted the physical possession of the demised premises in favour of the brother, respondent No. 2, who is in actual control of the demised premises and in these circumstances reasonable inference can be drawn that it is a case of subletting. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the statement of Shri Santokh Singh, Labour Inspector, who stated that Gurminder Singh, respondent No. 2, was running the general store in the shop in dispute. This witness in cross examination stated that the licence of general merchant was issued on 26.7.1994 and this licence was granted in favour of Gurminder Singh and Smt. Sukhcharanjit Kaur. This shows that the shop is being run both by Shri Gurminder Singh and by his sister Sukhcharanjit Kaur. So long the tenant has the control and legal possession of the demised premises, the ground of subletting cannot be inferred in favour of the petitioner. I do not see any illegality in the order passed by Rent Controller and the appellate authority.