Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1084 (PNJ)

Shakuntla Devi and another v. Dhanpati

2012-08-16

K.KANNAN

body2012
K.Kannan, J. (Oral);— 1. The revision petition is at the instance of the landlord challenging the correctness of the order passed by the appellate authority dismissing his petition for eviction. The only point urged before me by the counsel is a reconsideration of the finding as regards the alleged sub-letting said to have been done by the first respondent without written authority from the landlord. 2. Two contentions which were taken at the trial Court and the appellate Court were: (1) the respondents 2 to 6, who were said to be the sub-tenants, had not been examined in Court. (ii) The second contention was that the tenant, who contended that he was running a jewellary shop, had not shown any wages as having been paid to respondents 2 to 6 through any wage register or he had not even shown the wages alleged to have been paid in the income tax returns which were summoned to the Court below. 3. The appellate Court rejected this contention and held that even the petitioner's witness had admitted that the tenant continued in the premises but he was contending that the other persons were his own employees doing some menial work on work charge basis. The appellate authority observed that the nature of business in jewellary was such that he could have engaged persons in the shop and they must be treated as licensees and they could not be taken as sub-tenants. 4. The landlord who is aggrieved at the decision has similar arguments to pressforth, namely, the non-examination of the respondents 2 to 6 and the absence of any proof regarding payment of wages to respondents 2 and 6. Both these contentions are not weighty enough to displace the reasoning already adopted by the appellate authority and I have no reason to take a different view. The correctness of the decision of the Court below also be tested in the context of decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel wants a consideration of the application filed in CM No.11409 of 2007 for reception of certain photographs which, according to him, prove that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. A cessation of occupation of the premises as subsequent event could be a distinct ground for eviction and cannot be considered while dealing with the issue of sub-letting. A cessation of occupation of the premises as subsequent event could be a distinct ground for eviction and cannot be considered while dealing with the issue of sub-letting. Again the case would require to be considered on the basis of material already submitted and I do not feel constrained to refer to these photographs as relevant at all for a consideration of whether there had been sub-letting or not. The subsequent events are surely relevant in the rent control proceedings but only in so far as the grounds already urged. They cannot obtain a consideration on a new ground which is sought to be advanced before this Court. A reference to judgments of Supreme Courts on the relevance of the subsequent events cannot, therefore, be applied in this case. 6. In Joginder Singh Sodhi Versus Amar Kaur-(2005)1 SCC 31, the Supreme Court was examining the ingredients and proof of subletting, namely, (i) parting of possession of rented property by tenant to a third party, and (ii) receiving monetary consideration therefor. The Court held by referring to its earlier ruling that the burden of proof of subletting was on the landlord but once he established parting of possession by the tenant to a third party, the onus would shift on the tenant. The Supreme Court was considering a case where the landlady had established the parting of possession of a tenant to his son, and the Court observed that onus was on the tenant to explain as to how the son of the appellant, who was not staying with his father and was doing independent business came to occupy the shop in the property of the tenant. The Supreme Court was therefore actually considering a situation of a person, who had separated from his father and who was doing independent business but was seen occupying the shop and carrying that the business when the father himself had ceased to have the business. In this case, we have reference to the definite admission of the landlord's witnesses themselves that the tenant was still in possession of the shop. He was trying to explain the presence of other persons, namely, respondents 2 to 6 as persons working under him. The Court reasoned that the nature of business as such that it might have required other persons to assist him in the business. He was trying to explain the presence of other persons, namely, respondents 2 to 6 as persons working under him. The Court reasoned that the nature of business as such that it might have required other persons to assist him in the business. The case of the Supreme Court could very easily be distinguished on the point elucidated above. 7. The counsel also refers to the decision in Amrit Lal Versus Brij Mohan Lal and others-1992(2) RCR (Rent) 78, where the Court held that a person, who was in exclusive occupation of the premises and doing tailoring work, was sought to be explained by stating that such a person was doing tailoring work on behalf of the tenant. Here the exclusivity of possession of a person other than the tenant was found as establishing the case of sub-tenancy. We do not have in this case such exclusive possession of respondents 2 to 6 and this judgment cannot apply. The learned counsel would make further reference to the judgment in Parkash Chand Versus Shri Muni Lal and others-1979(1) RCR 90. The Court was in that case spelling out the nature of proof, viz., the landlord was expected to place on record the circumstance from which an inference of subletting could be drawn and the Court was explaining the onus would shift to tenant that there was no sub-letting if exclusive possession had been established. This again was a case of exclusive possession of persons other than the tenant, which we do not confront in this case. 8. The learned counsel also refers me to a decision rendered by this Court in Abhey Singh Versus Arjun Singh Kirpa Ram Charitable Trust and another-2009(2) RCR (Rent) 286. In that case, the conduct of the brother of the tenant in exclusive possession of shop and getting electricity connection in his name, was treated to be proof of subletting. We have already seen from even the judgment of the Supreme Court that even a case of a son of tenant in possession could amount to a case of subletting where the son was shown to have been divided from the father and that he was having a distinct different business from the father. The nearness of relationship of parties by itself will not be conclusive of either accepting or rejecting a case of sub-tenancy. The nearness of relationship of parties by itself will not be conclusive of either accepting or rejecting a case of sub-tenancy. It will be merely an aspect which the Court will consider along with other circumstances. In this case we have to grapple with a situation of persons/respondents 2 to 6, who were not relatives to the tenant in any way but whose occupation in the shop was explained by the tenant as his servants and the Court also found that the nature of avocation was such that there was nothing unusual in persons working and doing odd and and sundry works connected to the jewellary business. 9. I do not think it necessary to reproduce the decisions that spell out the cause and justification for reception of evidence for proof of subsequent events. 10. The civil revision is dismissed.