- (1.) This Appeal, by Special Leave, by the Landlord arises out of and is directed against the judgment and order dated 23-8-1982 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision Application No. 2588 of 1980, allowing the Respondent-tenant's appeal and - in reversal of the concurrent findings of the court below that there was an unauthorised subletting - dismissing Appellant's application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Act) for an order for grant of possession. There were other grounds for eviction - one of them that there were unauthorised structural alterations; but having regard to the limited scope of the proceedings before the High Court, those other points do not survive.
(2.) The two appellants - mother and son - as owners of the commercial premises S.C.O. No. 15, Sector 17E, Chandigarh, granted a lease, under deed dated 25-11-1970, in favour of M/s. S. Chokesiri and Co., respondent herein. The lease was for a term certain of 10 years from 1-1-1971 under the terms and on conditions particularised in the Deed Rent was initially Rs. 3,000/- per month subject to certain increases stipulated in the lease deed. Respondent carries on a business in clothing and textiles under the name and style "Saree Sansar" in the demised premises. The principal ground - and the only ground that survives - on which eviction was sought was that the respondent had, in about the year 1973, unauthorisedly and without the consent of the appellants, inducted two sub-tenants in two portions of the premises who, thereafter, carried-on their respective businesses of their own in the respective portions so sublet. One was a tailor, a certain Banwari Lal, who carried on his business under the name and style "Royal Star Tailors" and the other, Agia Ram Lamba, Proprietor of M/s. Kwality Restaurant who established a business under the name and style "M/s. Kwality Ice Cream" in the portion sublet.
(3.) The specific defence to this charge of subletting and the explanation for the admitted presence of those two other business establishments in the premises had better be excerpted from the respondent's additional written statement : "The respondents have not sublet any part of the demised premises to any one. The whole of the demised premises are in the exclusive possession of the respondents and are being used for the purpose of carrying on the business of the respondents, namely, selling cloth and ready-made garments and for purpose subsidiary and ancillary to the said business ......" "No part of the demised premises has been sublet by the respondent to M/s. Kwality Ice Cream or any tailors. Section 17 is the most fashionable shopping centre of the city. Most of the customers who frequent this shopping centre are ultra modern persons. It is a matter of common knowledge that in modern shopping centres, the owners of show-rooms, whatever the nature of their business keep small booths to provide cold drinks, ice-cream and pop-corns etc., to the customers, who come there with their children and spend considerable time making purchases in the show-rooms. The maintenance of such booths has become a necessary adjunct of all big shops in modern shopping centres." "Similarly, it is well known that in order to run the business of selling cloth efficiently, it is necessary to have a tailoring shop on the premises. Every customer, who makes purchase of cloth in any cloth shop of any consequence wants to consult a tailor in order to know exactly the length of the material that will be required by him for preparation of garments of his choice and most of the customers also like to have the garments stitched by the tailoring outfit on the premises of the cloth shop, more especially when the customers belong to sophisticated upper class." The respondent also produced and relied upon the agreements dated 13-9-1973 entered into between Respondent and the said Banwari Lal of "Royal Star Tailors" (Ex. Mark 'B') and dated 17-9-1973 between the Respondent and the said Agia Ram Lamba of "M/s. Kwality Restaurant" (Ex. Mark 'A') the terms of which, according to the respondent, clearly excluded any possibility of subletting.;