R.L.AANAND,J - (1.) THIS is a landlord's 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 petitioner 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. 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.
(3.) PARTIES led 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. In the present case, the appellant/landlord has failed to discharge its onus. The appellant/applicant's 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) R.C.R. (P&H) 161, it has been held by a single Bench of the Hon'ble 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 Ram Nihal Singh and ors. v. Panna Lal, 1994(1) CLJ (C.Cr&Rev) 203 : 1994(1) RCR 296, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Jhanji of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, has held that test to determine sub-letting 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 brothers 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 respondents 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 on 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.;