- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the appellate order dated 8.1.75 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act).
(2.) The demised premises are situate in Saban Bazar, Ludhiana, and were taken on lease by petitioner No. 1 originally on 6.6.1949 vide lease deed Ex. A.2. In that deed there is an express mention that the lessee would be entitled to induct a tailor into the premises. On 3.5.1961, petitioner No. 1 executed another lease deed Ex. R.W.1/1 in favour of the respondent. In that deed there is an express mention that it would not be open to petitioner No. 1 to lease out the premises in dispute in favour of a tailor. The respondents filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act on the ground that petitioner No. 1 had sub-let a part of the premises after the coming into force of the Act without the consent of the landlord in writing. In this connection it might be mentioned that on 7.6.1966 petitioner No. 1 gave a part of premises to Malkiat Singh petitioner No. 2 under an alleged licence deed Ex. R.1. Both the learned Tribunals below have come to a finding that under the so-called licence deed Ex. R.1 petitioner No. 1 has actually sub-let a part of the premises in favour of Malkiat Singh petitioner No. 2.
(3.) In this petition, it has been vehemently argued by Mr. Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that where a cloth merchant allows a tailor to occupy a part of the demised premises, the arrangement brought forth does not constitute sub-letting. In support of this argument, the learned counsel has relied upon Amar Nath v. Shrimati Savitri Devi,1955 PDR 276, and Smt. Prakash Wanti v. Rattan Lal Jain and another, 1976 RCJ 87. The earlier case was decided by Falshaw, J., (as the learned Chief Justice then was). He held that where a tailor is allowed to sit on a shop by a cloth merchant the latter, retaining legal possession of the entire shop, the arrangement arrived at does not amount to sub-letting Smt. Parkash Wanti's case was decided by A.S. Bains, J. the learned Judge relying upon Krishna Wanti v. Hans Raj, 1975 RCJ 164, has also taken the same view in case of similar arrangements between a cloth merchant and a tailor. The following observations made by the learned Judge are pertinent :- "No question was put to the petitioner regarding sub-letting when she appeared in the witness box. She denied in examination-in-chief that she had sub-let the shop in dispute to Hari Ram. In cross-examination no question was put to her that Hari Ram is in exclusive possession of the shop or that the she had sub-let the same to Hari Ram. Daulat Ram who appeared as R.W. 5 clearly stated that the possession is of Parkash Wanti and that she has kept the workers for tailoring purposes. Hari Ram, who appeared as R.W. 2 also denied this fact that the shop in question was sub-let to him by the petitioner. He has categorically stated that he used to work under her and got two-thirds of the tailoring charges and one third was taken by the petitioner. No question regarding sub-letting, control or possession of the shop was even put to Hari Ram." Apparently, in that case the tailor was not actually found to be in exclusive possession of a part of the premises.;