IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2941 of 1991 Date of decision:28.04.2009 Mehnga Ram (deceased) through his L.Rs. and others ...Petitioners versus Sagar Chand (deceased) through his L.Rs. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the respondents. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. There is no representation for the petitioners. Counsel for the respondents is present and ready. 2. The revision arises out of an order of ejectment in rent petition that had been instituted on 21.05.1986. The civil revision is pending since 1991. Having regard to the long pendency of the case, I deem it appropriate to take up the case and dispose it of on merits on perusal of the records with the assistance of the counsel for the respondent. 3. The point that survived for consideration in the rent petition was whether there had been sub-letting by the tenant Mehnga Ram in favour of second respondent who is the revision-petitioner before Civil Revision No.2941 of 1991 - 2 - this Court and who is also incidentally his own son. The landlord applied for ejectment stating that the tenancy had been only in favour of the father Mehnga Ram and he had parted with exclusive possession to his son for running his business. He relied on a letter mark Ex.A-1 that made a specific reference to the fact that he was transferring the tenancy in favour of his son Hari Kishan because he had invested Rs.12,000/- in the shop from out of his pocket. This letter showed that the transfer of tenancy was a matter of admission but it did not still find favour with the Rent Controller and he dismissed the petition. The Appellate Authority however reversed the decision finding that the close relationship between the tenant and the alleged sub tenant was irrelevant for it was not a case of the son being associated in business with the father but a case of exclusive possession handed over to the son by the father whom he described as transfer of tenancy. If it was such a transfer and it was not with the written concurrence of the landlord, the consequences are inescapable, and hence the case of sub tenancy as found by the Appellate Authority, accords with law and there is no scope for taking a different view in the revision. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohammedkasam Haji Gulambhai vs. Bakerali Fali (dead) by L.Rs -reported in 1998 (2) RLR 340, where Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which dealing with the case under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 had held that where a tenant ceded his possession to his son and the physical control over the premises was being exercised by the son to Civil Revision No.2941 of 1991 - 3 - the exclusion of the father and when there was no evidence that the son took over the family business, it was the case of sub letting. The decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court clearly applies to the situation that obtains in this case. 4. The Civil Revision is therefore dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 28.04.2009 sanjeev