JAI SINGH SEKHON,J - (1.) THE premises in dispute located at Timber Market, Ambala Cantt, belonging to Sh. Prem Chand Gupta was taken on rent of Rs. 1482/- per month, besides Municipal tax etc. by the Hindustan Commercial Bank, Ltd., Kanpur, on 25th January, 1977. The landlord filed application before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act). The Rent Controller accepted this application and fixed the fair rent fair rent at Rs. 1813.10. Being aggrieved against said order, the Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. went in appeal under Section 15 of the Act before the Appellate Authority, Ambala. During the pendency of this appeal, the Hindustan Commercial Bank was amalgamated with the Punjab National Bank vide Central Government Notification No. 17/2/86.B.O.III (ii), dated 18th December, 1986. The Punjab National Bank then moved an application under the provisions of rule 10 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure for its substitution as appellant, contending that by virtue of the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, all the rights and liabilities, including its right to tenancy etc. of the Hindustan Commercial Bank has since been acquired by the Punjab National Bank. This application was resisted by the landlord contending that the transfer of these rights of the premises in dispute in favour of the Punjab National Bank by the original tenant Bank amounted to sub-letting or transfer of right under the lease and thus under the provisions of Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act, the tenant as well as the sub-tenant are liable to be ejected. it was also contended that the landlord had already filed an application for ejectment on this very ground before the Rent Controller. The learned Appellate Authority vide its order dated 10th March 1987, dismissed the application of the Punjab National Bank by holding that the transfer of rights under the lease as also the sub-letting of the premises without the written consent of the landlord, would certainly be a good ground for ejectment and that the Punjab National Bank has not become a tenant of the premises in dispute. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of this court in Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. Hoshiarpur v. Som Nath s/o Nanak Chand and others, 1983(2) RCR 202 : 1983 HRR 303, as well as of the Supreme Court in M/s. Parasram Harnand Rao v. M/s Shanti Parsad Narinder Kumar Jain and others, 1980(2) RCR 520 : AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1655, besides of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M.A. Khader v. M/s General Radio Appliances (P) Ltd. and another, AIR 1977 Andhra Pradesh 115. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority disposed of the parent appeal on 21st March, 1987 by hearing the learned counsel for the Hindustan Commercial Bank and reduced the fair rent to Rs. 1778.90 per month on the basis of some mistake on the part of the Rent Controller in calculating the same.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved against the said orders, the Punjab National Bank has come up in this revision petition, which was admitted by D.V. Sehgal, J. mainly against the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the application of the Punjab National Bank under the provisions of Order 22 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I have heard Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, besides perusing the record.
(3.) THERE is no dispute between the parties that transfer of any right under the lease or sub-letting the premises in dispute by the tenant without the written consent of the landlord is a good ground for ejectment under the provisions of section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. The relevant provisions of the said Act run as under :- "13. Eviction of tenants :- (1) ------ ------- --------- -------- -------- -------- -------- (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller, for direction in that behalf. If the Controller after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied------ -------- ---------- --------- (ii) That the tenant has after the commencement of the 1949 Act, without the written consent of the landlord, (a) transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof." Obviously, such transfer of right and sub-letting pertains to the volitional and voluntary act of the tenant and does not cover those contingencies where by operation of any law or statute such transfer of right or sub-letting of the leased property takes place. This view is supported from the findings of a Single Bench of this Court in Shrimati Brij Rani v. Punjab Handloom Weaver Apex Co-operative Society Ltd. and another, 1976 RCR 398 : All India Rent Control Journal 322, wherein it was held that the transfer of the rented premises by the Punjab Handloom Weavers Apex Co-operative Society Ltd. in favour of the Haryana Handloom Weavers Apex Co-operative Society Ltd., without the written consent of the landlord would not amount to sub-letting or transfer of any lease rights and entail the ejectment of a tenant as such transfer was the result of the provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act (31 of 1966) creating some areas of Punjab as Haryana State. The relevant observations of the Court run as under :- "Held that under sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 13 of the East Punjab Urban rent Restriction Act, 1949, a tenant is liable to ejectment if after the commencement of the Act, he transfers his right under the lease or sub-lets the buildings rented out to him without the consent of the landlord. The transfer envisaged by the sub-clause is thus a voluntary transfer and not a transfer which takes place by operation of law and without any act of volition on his part. The transfer of tenancy rights in the shop in question in favour of the Haryana Society took placer by reason of a scheme prepared under the provisions of section 5-D of the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942, which was added thereto by section 70 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966. It is true that the scheme was not approved under sub-section (2) of Section 5-D and had to be referred to Tuli, J. of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the Central Registrar under sub-section (3) of that section and was approved subject to various financial adjustments by Tuli, J., on the 19th of April, 1971, long before which date transfer of the tenancy rights in favour of the Haryana Society had taken place but that circumstance does not stand in the way of the scheme being operative right from the Ist day of November, 1966. Sub-section (1) of Section 5-D of Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, clearly lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 5-A of that Act or any other law for the time being in force, a scheme prepared by the Board of Directors and certified by the State Government shall be binding on all Societies affected by it. It further states that no such scheme shall be given effect to before the Ist day of November, 1966. The result is that any scheme prepared and certified before that date becomes operative as from that date even though it is approved neither under sub-section (2) nor under sub-section (3). The only requirement of a scheme in order that it may become operative is that it shall be prepared by the Board of Directors and certified by the State Government before the Ist day of November, 1966. That the scheme with which the High Court is concerned was so prepared and certified is common ground between the parties. There was, therefore, no impediment in the way of its becoming operative as from that date. The only limitation on its operation was that it was to be subject to such financial adjustments as might be directed in that behalf under sub-section (3). Such adjustments are a matter with which the transfer of the tenancy rights has no concern. Further the contention that the word 'depot' used in the scheme does not include the tenancy rights in the premises in which the depot was being run, cannot be agreed to. In the context in which it is used the word 'depot' was intended to have the widest meaning so that it would include not only the goods being in the premises of the depot but also all its assets and liabilities. The rights of tenancy in the shop were rights in immovable property and formed one of the valuable assets of the Punjab Society and would, therefore, be transferable to the Haryana Society under the scheme. The petition fails and is dismissed." ;