- (1.) This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1134 and 1135 of 1975, as both have been filed against the same order.
(2.) The petitioner-landlords filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against Puran Chand and Roskan Lal sons of Lakhu Ram and Bhan Chand and Rakha Ram sons of Manak Mal, for their ejectment from the building as shown in plan Exhibit A. 2, situated at Muktsar. It was stated in the application that Roshan Lal and Puran Chand took a nauhra consisting of 11 shops and a darwaja (corridor) and open space from the petitioners on rent vide rent deed dated 14th April, 1949, marked Exhibit A. 1, at Rs. 900/- per annum. According to the landlords, a part of the stld premises was sublet to Bhan Chand and Rakha Ram and therefore all of them are liable to ejectment. (This is the only ground with which we are concerned in these petitions, though in the ejectment petitions, certain other grounds were also taken). Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. Puran Chaud and Roshan Lal pleaded In their written statement that they were never in possession of that portion which is in possession of Bhan Chand and Rakha Ram respondents According to them, they i.e. Bhan Chand etc. had taken possession of the site directly from the owners. It is the common case of the parties that a part of the premises had been purchased by Bhan Chand subsequently vide registered sale-deed. dated 28th November, 1960, marked Exhibit R. 1, from one of its owners Smt. Mehtabo Bai. It was, therefore, pleaded that the question of subletting. under the circumstances, did not arise. Moreover, it was further pleaded by them that they have been in possession of the site shown as blue in the plan since 1945 under Mehtabo Bai. The relevant issue was issue No. 1, which related to the subletting of the premises in dispute to Bhan Chand and Rakha Ram, without the written consent of the landlords by their tenants Furan Chand and Roshan Lal. The Rent Controller found this issue In favour of the landlords as it came to the conclusion that it was proved that Puran Chand and Roshan Lal have sublet the premises to Bhan Chand and Rakha Kam without the written consent of the landlords. He came to this conclusion on the basis that it was for Bhan Chand and Rakha Ram to show that in what capacity they were In possession of the premises in dispute. In appeal, the lower appellate Court has reversed this finding on this issue and it categorically held that "the above evidence clearly shows that Puran Chand, Rosban Lal took the nauhra on rent from the landlords in 1949. Bhan Chand and Rakha Ram took their portion on rent in 1944-45 from the landlords. There is no question of subletting. The issue is found against the landlords". Feeling aggrieved against this order of the Appellate Authority, landlords have come in revision to this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that it is quite evident from the rent note, marked Exhibit A. 1, that the whole area measuring 2616 sq. yards in which Khasra No. 199, measuring 415 sq. yards, is included, was rented out to Puran Chand, Roshan Lal and according to the alleged sub-tenants Bhan Chand and Rakha tram, they are in possession of a part of Khasra No. 199 as purchased by them vide Exhibit K. 1, dated 28th November, 1960. It will be deemed that they had occupied the same as sub-tenants under Puran Chand and Roshan Lal. Under these circumstances, it was contended that it will be for them to prove that there is no subletting and that they are in occupation in their own right as alleged by them to the written statement.;