Muni Lal Verma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is the landlady and this revision petition arose out of the proceedings wherein she claimed eviction or respondents from the property (hereinafter called the premises) described in the eviction application, made under section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, then applicable to the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in the circumstances briefly stated as under :
(2.) HER case was that she had let out the premises to the Rice Syndicate, hereinafter called the Syndicate, through Ram Singh, respondent No. 3, on monthly rental of Rs 31/ - plus house -tax, and he (Ram Singh) as well as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 13 were partners in business run by the Syndicate. Some time later, the Syndicate was dissolved and respondents 1 to 13 who were its partners transferred business of the premises to Messers Rati Ram Kishan Sarup. Rati Ram respondent No. 8 and Kishan Sarup respondent No. 9 were partners of the said firm and this constituted sub letting, (b) non payment of rent and house -tax for period for August 1, 1967 to October 31, 1969, (c) causing damage to a wall; and (d) impairing materially the utility of premises. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner. They controverted the material allegations made by her and pleaded that the premises had been taken on rent by Ram Singh, Rati Ram and Kishan Sarup respondents, and not by the Syndicate and that they were not liable to pay the house -tax. Ram Singh and others had tendered and deposited the amount of rent due, interest and costs assessed by the court on the first date of hearing. Hence, the case was tried on the following issues - - (1) Did the petitioner give the shop in question on rent to the Rice Syndicate whose partners were respondents 1 to 3 ?OPP. (2) Did the Rice Syndicate sub -let the shop in question to respondent No. 14 and therefore, the respondents are liable to be ejected ? (3) Have the respondents committed such acts and damage as are likely to impair materially the value of utility of the building and hence they are liable to be rejected ?OPP. (4) Have the arrears of rent, interest and costs not been paid or validly tendered on the first hearing and therefore the respondents are liable to be ejected ?OPP (5) Was the rent fixed Rs. 31/ - plus house -tax and the petitioner is entitled to recover house -tax besides Rs. 31/ - per month ?PP. (6) Is the petitioner not entitled for interest and costs ?OPR. (7) Had the petitioner given a valid notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act ? If not to what effect ?OPR. (8) Could respondent Nos. 1, 3, 8 start their business in the name of respondent No. 14 in the shop in question of the dissolution of the Rice Syndicate. If not to what effect ?OPR. (9) Relief. 2. The learned Rent Controller decided issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 against the petitioner. He decided issue No. 6 against but issue No. 8 in favour of the respondents, and issue No. 7 in favour of the petitioner. He held under issue No. 5 that initially the premises were let out on monthly rental of Rs. 31/ - which included the house -tax but with effect from August 18, 1969 the petitioner was entitled to recover house -tax over and above the aforesaid rent. The finding of the Rent Controller under issue No. 1 was that the petitioner had let out the premises to Ram Singh, Rati Ram and Kishan Sarup. As a result of the aforesaid findings, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction application. The petitioner carried appeal to the Appellate Authority which also met the same fate. Hence, she came to this Court in revision. The only around pressed by Mr. Sarin, Learned Counsel for the petitioner for obtaining eviction of the respondents from the premises, is of sub letting, and this was the ground which was mainly contested before the Appellate Authority. "Sub -letting" is not defined in the Act. A lessee would be said to have sub -let the property if he has transferred his rights under the lease and by delivering possession of the said property becomes a stranger, and has no right to have its possession restored to him. There cannot be sub -letting without the lessee's parting with the legal possession of the demised premises. A tenant remains in possession if he merely permits any person to use the demised property The mere fact that he (the tenant) has allowed some one to use the demised premises when he retains the right of tenancy and legal possession of the same would not constitute sub letting The real test to determine sub letting is whether the tenant has walked out of the demised premises and has hundred over its exclusive possession and control to the sub -tenants. A tenant is entitled to use the demised property for any business he likes and if he take, someone as partner in his business the partner does not get the right of tenancy and cannot claim the status of a tenant or sub -tenant. Even though the partnership may be distinct entity from the tenant, it cannot, in my opinion, be maintained that the tenant, pried with the possession of the demised premises by joining some in as partner with him in the business. The matter is not res Integra and there are various decisions of this Court wherein such a view has been expressed. It has been observed in Murli Dhar v. Chuni Lal, 1970 RCJ 922 :, 1969 RCR 563, that when a shop had been let out to a firm, the business of which was closed thereafter, and the shop was used by new firm with one of the partners of the old firm joining the a new firm, the same would not be considered as subletting. As indicated above, the finding of the Rent Controller was that the premises had been let out to Ram Singh. Rati Ram and Kishan Sarup, and not to the Syndicate. It is a finding of face and was not disturbed by the Appellate Authority and I see no infirmity therein, When the Syndicate was not the tenant, the stand of the petitioner that the partners of the said Syndicates had sub -let the premises, to Ram Singh, Rati Ram and Kishan Sarup falls squarely to the ground. The partners of the new firm are said to be Rati Ram, Kishan Sarup and Devi Dayal Therefore, it is evident that two of the tenants, namely. Rati Ram and Kishan Sarup, are definitely in possession of the premises and 'hey have allowed Devi Dayal to join as partner in the business, run by them in the premises. So, in view of the position of law and the facts of the case, discussed above, it cannot be maintained that there had been subletting of the premises The finding of the Rent Controller on that matter recorded under Issue No. 2 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is correct. So, the judgment of the appellate Authority is unassailable and this revision petition is bereft of any merits.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , I maintaining the judgment of the Appellate Authority, dismiss this revision petition with costs.;