J.V.Gupta, J. - (1.) THE tenant petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Patiala dated 16th October, 1975, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment has been maintained.
(2.) THE landlady -respondent filed an application for ejectment of his tenant from the premises known as 'Sarai Albel Singh' situated out side Lahori Gate, Patiala, on the ground inter -alia of subletting to various sub -tenants. Briefly stated Kirpal Kaur, the landlady got the premises from her husband Kuldip Singh, who had already rented out the premises to the tenant Bhagwant Rai, vide lease -deed dated 3rd June, 1957, Exhibit AW6/1 for one year, i.e. from 12th May, 1957 to 11th May, 1958 on the annual rent of Rs. 3300/ -. She also asserted that by virtue of gift deed dated 29th July, 1957 by her husband Kuldip Singh in her favour, she became the owner of these premises and Bhagwant Rai tenant. She also asserted that the tenant had sub -let these premises to various persons without her consent and thus was liable to be evicted. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant it was pleaded that the premises in dispute firstly were under Court of Wards and he was the tenant at the annual rent of Rs. 2850/ - and thereafter after the release of the property from the Court of Wards he became the tenant of Shri Kuldip Singh at the rate of Rs. 3,300/ - per year. With regard to the subletting it was contended that the terms of the tenancy permit him to sublet the same. It was also asserted that previous applications of the landlady were dismissed and she never pleaded the ground of subletting for his ejectment and, therefore, the present application was not competent and was barred on the principles of estoppel and constructive res judicata. It was further contended that the premises were already occupied by the tenant since the inception of the tenancy and that he continued to occupy it on the same terms and conditions as given in Exhibit AW6/1, which clearly provide for subletting thereof. Besides that the very nature of the building being 'Sarai' implies that it is meant for letting out to others for their stay. On the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed the following issues: 1. Whether there exists relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties? 2. Whether the respondent has sublet almost the entire building to various persons, if so, to what effect? 3. Whether notice under Section 103 of the Transfer of Property Act is necessary to be served, if not, its effect? 4. WHETHER this application is not maintainable and is barred as alleged in paras 5 and 6 of the written statement? 5.WHETHER the respondent is estopped from challenging the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? Relief.
(3.) All the material issues were found in favour of the landlady and it was held that the tenant was not entitled to sublet the premises to the various persons, and therefore, was liable to be ejected on this ground and consequently the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant -petitioner. In appeal this finding of the Rent Controller has been maintained. Feeling aggrieved against this the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.;