Surinder Singh, J. - (1.) PANNA Lal Petitioner -landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against the Firm Vakil Chand Pawan Kumar Respondent No. 1 on two allegations but for the purpose of the present Revision petition, the material one is that Respondent No. 1 had sublet a part of the demised premises to Respondent No. 2, without the written consent of the Petitioner. The allegation was, of course, denied on behalf of the Respondents. After framing the necessary issues, the trial Court permitted the parties to lead evidence and from the quantum of the same it is obvious that the case was hotly contested. After considering the matter and by means of a detailed judgment, the trial Court allowed the petition of the landlord by holding that Respondent No. 1 had sublet the premises to Respondent No. 2, without the written consent of the Petitioner The Respondents were further ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. Respondent No. 1 however, took the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority who reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the ejectment petition. The present Revision Petition has, thus, been filed by the landlord.
(2.) IN so far as the facts are concerned, in the wake of sufficient material both oral as well as documentary placed on the record, there does not appear to be any dispute on the material points. The undisputed facts may he noticed. The shop in dispute was leased to Respondent No. 1 and all through the said Respondent has been paying the rent to the Petitioner -landlord. The payment is evidenced by entries in the Khata bahi Exhibits R/61 to R/96. Respondent No. 2 Firm holds a licence for the sale of Gur. This Firm had to pledge its stock of Gur to the Central Bank of India and for that purpose a godown was required. A room of the demised shop was used as this godown which was numbered as 348873 by the Central Bank of India and it is un -disputed that 200 qatts weighing 110 quintals of Gur were socked by Respondent No. 2 -Firm in a room of the demised premises. Exhibit A6 is the pledge Order in respect of the above transaction. It is further in the evidence of the Bank's Godown Keeper's Certificate Exhibit A10 that he took charge of the above mentioned godown containing the Gur referred to above, belonging to Respondent No. 2. Firm on May 31, 1972. The Bank's own lock was fitted in the godown and the godown could be operated upon only by the key of the Bank. It is in these premises that it has to be determined whether Respondent No. 1 had sublet the premises or a part thereof to Respondent No. 2 or not. As already stated, the Rent Controller gave a finding in favour of the Petitioner, but the Appellate Authority chose to deal the whole transaction as between close relatives who had conidial relations and the use and occupation of the portion of the shop was held to be "a matter of courtesy Mr. H.L. Sarin, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that in the face of the admitted facts which have been found by both the Authorities below, there was no occasion for the Appellate Authority to come to a conclusion which had never been contended even by Respondent No. 1, as is apparent from a perusal of the pleadings of the parties. There is indeed substance in this argument. The Appellate Authority has fallen in a patent error in assessing as to whether it was a case of subletting or not. The crucial circumstance which is completely ignored is that one of the rooms of the demised shop was made available by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent "No. 2, and the latter had in turn used it as a godown for pledging his stocks of Gur with the Bank. An important feature of this transaction is that the room which was used us a godown, was taken possession of by the Bank Authorities who had put their own lock in the same, which is a normal procedure in such transactions of pledge. This being so, there is no escape from the conclusion that the tenant had parted with the possession and control of a part of the shop and had thus transferred his right under the lease. It cannot be said that it was only done as a matter of courtesy. Indeed, it was difficult for the land -land to prove that Respondent No. 1 had actually charged some rent or other compensation from Respondent No. 2 for allowing the use of the room as a godown of the bank, because evidence regarding the same could not possibly fall in the hands of the Petitioner, the transaction being strictly between both the Respondents. However, the Petitioner was able to bring on record sufficient material to indicate that Respondent No. 1 completely lost control of a part of the shop in favour of Respondent No. 2 and the Bank. Again, the fact that the premises which were sublet, were redeemed before the filing of the ejectment application, would not improve matters in so far as the allegations of subletting is concerned. Hardly, any authority is required in regard to the proposition that once subletting is proved, the fact that the same had ceased before the filing of the application, would not absolve the tenant from his liability to he evicted.
(3.) THE Revision Petition is consequently accepted and the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller is restored. The demised premises being commercial in nature, Respondent No. 1 is allowed two months' time from today to vacate the same and hand over its possession to the landlord.;