CR No.2036 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2036 of 2012 (O & M) Date of decision:30.03.2012 Kirpal Ram .....Petitioner Versus Navneet Kumar & others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** G.S.Sandhawalia J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the sub-tenant who has been ordered to be evicted from the premises in question on the ground of sub-letting by the original tenant, namely, Ved Parkash. 2. The petition is filed on the ground that the shop as mentioned in the head-note of the petition was taken on rent by Ved Parkash on 28.05.1998 for a period of one year, i.e., from 01.06.1998 to 31.05.1999 @ `2500/- per month and advance rent of 6 months was agreed to be paid. The shop was to be handed-back after one year and after 2 years, the rent was agreed to be enhanced @ 10% and the house tax was to be paid by Ved Paraksh. It was alleged that he had not paid the rent after paying 6 months advance rent and from 01.01.1999 to 31.05.2000 and thereafter, at the enhanced rates. It was alleged that Ved Parkash was not doing any business and he had sub-let the shop to Kirpal Ram(present petitioner) without the consent of the original landlord who is running his business in the said shop in the name of Simran Photostat and had obtained a STD/PCO connection from Connect company. During the pendency of the petition, Ved Parkash died and his legal representatives were impleaded and notice was issued to CR No.2036 of 2012 2 them but except Mahesh Kumar, one of the legal representatives, others failed to appear and were proceeded against ex parte. He stated that Ved Parkash had died on 04.02.2009 and pleaded that Kirpal Ram was liable to pay the rent as well as the house tax. Kirpal Ram filed separate reply whereas he admitted that he had taken the disputed shop from Ved Parkash and alleged that there was oral consent of the landlord on the expiry of the period of 6 months after 01.06.1998 and he was in possession of the disputed shop and had paid the rent amount along with house tax since 31.12.1998. 3. The Rent Controller, Barnala, after taking into consideration the pleadings, the issues and the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that Ved Parkash, during his life-time and after his death, his legal representatives had not paid the rent along with house tax from 01.01.1999 and they were in arrears of rent since 01.01.1999. It was taken into consideration that there was no dispute that Kirpal Ram was in possession of the shop but he had failed to file any receipt of payment of rent and house tax and to show in which capacity he was the tenant of the shop. Accordingly, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that Ved Parkash had sub-let the shop to Kirpal Ram without the consent of the landlord in violation of the rent note dated 28.05.1998 and was in arrears of rent and house tax from 01.01.1999 and accordingly, held that the landlord was entitled for order of ejectment and had locus standi to file the present petition and was not estopped from filing the same by any act or conduct and allowed the ejectment application on 07.12.2011. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority, Barnala which was dismissed on 11.02.2012 and resultantly, the present revision petition has been filed. CR No.2036 of 2012 3 4. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the house tax receipts, Exhibit R1 would show that house tax had been paid from 2008- 2010 and the landlord would not pay the same from his own pocket and no provisional assessment had been made in order to enable him to deposit the rent and therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below are not correct. 5. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner carries no weight as admittedly, there is no relationship of tenant-landlord between the petitioner and respondent No.1. It is the admitted case of the parties that the premises were originally let-out to Ved Parkash for a sum of `2500/- and even the stand of the present petitioner is that he had entered into the premises with effect from 01.01.1999 with the oral consent of the landlord. The provisions of Section 13(2) specifically provide that without the written consent of the landlord, if the premises are sub-let, it would be ground for ejectment. Nothing has been placed on record to show that there was any relationship of tenant-landlord between the present petitioner and respondent No.1 and therefore, it is a clear case of sub-letting. The legal heirs of Ved Parkash themselves have taken the plea that they were not in exclusive possession of the shop and the possession is with Kirpal Ram which has also been admitted by him as well as in his statement when he was examined as RW1, as noticed by the Appellate Authority. The present petition itself is not maintainable since the landlord cannot be asked to fight litigation with a sub-tenant and in the present case, the petitioner himself has no right to agitate that the rent had not been provisionally assessed as it has been conclusively found that there is no relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. CR No.2036 of 2012 4 6. Accordingly, no fault can be found with the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the petitioner is sub-tenant in the premises and has been inducted without the written consent of the landlord and that there was no relationship of tenant-landlord between them and the same cannot warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed and the orders passed by the Courts below are up-held. 30.03.2012 (G.S.Sandhawalia) sailesh JUDGE