Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rishi vs Sham Lal And Anr. on 1 December, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1993)105PLR275
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This is tenant's revision Petition directed against the orders of the Authorities below whereby the tenant was ordered to be ejected on the ground of sub-letting.
2. In brief, the facts are that ejectment petition was filed against the petitioner on the allegation that the shop in dispute was let out to him on 5-8-1987 at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month and after six months, it was enhanced to Rs. 800/- per month. Ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground that the petitioner has sub-let the premises to respondent No. 2. On contest, ejectment petition was allowed by the Rent Controller. On appeal by the tenant, order of the Rent Controller was affirmed by the appellate Authority. However, the Rent Controller as well as the appellate Authority found the rent to be Rs. 500/- per month and not Rs. 800/- per month as alleged by the landlord.
3. The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 is his employee and it is not a case of sub-letting.
4. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. In order to establish sub-letting, the landlord was required to show that somebody else other than the tenant was in occupation of the premises. It was specifically alleged by the landlord that respondent No. 2 is in possession of the premises. In the written statement, the tenant took a specific stand, i.e. respondent No. 2 is his employee. Once the petitioner admitted respondent No. 2 to be in possession, it was for him to prove on record that respondent No. 2 was under his employment. Petitioner has neither produced the account-books nor any document which could show that respondent No. 2 was his employee. Respondent No. 2 too himself has not come to the witness-box to support this averment of the petitioner. In the absence of any evidence, I am of the view that the Authorities below rightly ordered ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of sub-letting.
5. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the tenant is allowed two month's time to vacate the premises provided he pays the entire arrears of rent, including that of two months, within one month from today, and also files an undertaking within one month to the effect that he shall hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord on the expiry of the aforesaid period.