PADAM CHAND Vs. BRIJ BIHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a rule against the appellate decree of Mr. Manohar Lal Vijh, Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, holding that it has not been proved that the defendant Brij Behari Lal is liable to eviction under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, hereinafter called the Act.

(2.) The landlord Padam Chand, had given notice to the tenant on the 11th April, 1948 asking him to vacate the premises on the ground that he had without the consent of the landlord parted with possession of a flat or alienated or sublet the same. He brought a suit for ejectment under the Act on the 11th June, 1948 and the learned Sub Judge decreed the suit holding that subletting had been proved. On appeal the learned Senior Subordinate Judge held that there was no subletting and disbelieved the evidence of the plaintiff on the ground that subletting was not mentioned in the notice nor was it given in the plaint. Nor did he refer to section 9(2) of the Act.

(3.) In the notice the plaintiff has, no doubt, not specifically stated that the property has been sublet, but the language used seems to be that of a lawyer who was over-anxious to use every legal phrase which he could think of in the matter of parting of possession by the tenant. Subletting is mentioned in this notice. In the paint also, paragraph 3, the ground of subletting is taken as the ground for eviction. It appears to me that if the learned Judge's attention had been drawn to these two documents he would not have differed from the finding of the trial Court. The reason given by the learned Judge is that because subletting is not mentioned in the notice or in the plaint, therefore, he was not prepared to believe the statement of the plaintiff or of the plaintiff's witness. On this ground alone I think the judgment of the learned Judge is vitiated.