Civil Revision No. 2098 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 2098 of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.12.2008 Dr. Kamaljit Singh Notra and Another …Petitioners Versus Paramjit Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) A shop was rented out by the respondent-landlord to Dr. Kamaljit Singh Notra, at Jalandhar Road, near Hoshiarpur Gas Service, Hoshiarpur. A finding has been given by the two Courts below that Dr. Notra had migrated to New Zealand in the middle of July 2002 on permanent immigration, along with his family. Learned Rent Controller further held that respondents No.2 and 3 are sub tenants of Dr. Kamaljit Singh Notra without written consent of the landlord. Learned Rent Controller further held that it has been admitted that respondents No.2 and 3 are in possession of the shop. Once presence of respondents No.2 & 3 was admitted, it is for the tenant to allay presumption that they are not sub tenant. Tenant Dr. Civil Revision No. 2098 of 2008 2 Kamaljit Singh Notra had not appeared in evidence. No reliable evidence has been led to show that respondents No.2 and 3 are not the sub- tenants. In this context, brief facts of the case are required to be noticed. Dr. Kamaljit Singh Notra was inducted as tenant in 1982 at a monthly rent of Rs.400/- and after four years of tenancy, rent was enhanced to Rs.500/-. It was pleaded in the eviction petition that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 12.7.2002. Thereafter, Dr. Kamaljit Singh Notra had gone to New Zealand on permanent immigration visa along with his family. It was further averred that he ceased to occupy the shop since the last four months continuously without sufficient cause. It was further stated that respondent No.1 Dr. Kamaljit Singh Notra has sublet the shop in dispute to respondents No.2 and 3. The respondents No.2 and 3 are not even Registered Medical Practitioner and are giving medicines to the patients. A reply was filed wherein it was admitted that Dr. Kamaljit Singh Notra has gone to New Zealand but it was denied that he has gone on permanent basis. It was further stated that respondent No.1 has not ceased to occupy the shop since last four months and respondents No.2 and 3 are running the Clinic in the disputed shop not as sub tenants but are working in the Clinic under the instructions of Dr. Notra. Mr. Sanjay Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, has stated that Ranjit Singh, sub tenant appeared and tendered his affidavit Ex.RW1/A in which he has stated that he is working as a Compounder with the doctor and he has engaged Dr. Surinder Pal to visit the Clinic who used to visit once in a week. It was further stated that that Ranjit Singh used to give medicines to the patients by looking into prescription given by Civil Revision No. 2098 of 2008 3 Dr. Surinder Pal. It was further pleaded that shop was never closed since Dr. Kamaljit Singh Notra left abroad. Thus, learned Rent Controller rightly concluded that Dr. Notra, tenant of the premises, has no control over the business of Clinic and he has ceased to occupy the shop in dispute since July 2002 without sufficient cause. Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filed. Learned Appellate Authority has concurred with the findings of learned Rent Controller. The two Courts below after examining evidence have arrived at concurrent finding that petitioner No.1 due to his permanent immigration to New Zealand has not only inducted sub tenant but also ceased to occupy the shop in dispute, as he has lost effective control over the premises. Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has read Section 13(1) & 13(2)(v) and has stated that this clause is very material as it states that the tenant has ceased to occupy the shop in dispute continuously for four months without any reasonable cause. Therefore, no such issue was framed whether a tenant ceased to occupy without any reasonable cause. Motivated with profit and greed even after immigration if someone induct somebody as sub tenant and loose the effective control, no reasonable cause can be expected. Mr. Gupta has further stated that it has come in the evidence of landlord that Ranjit Singh was none else but was earlier Compounder with Dr. Notra. It is a case where the doctor after shifting to New Zealand along with his family entrusted entire business to his Compounder for a profit and the two Courts below have rightly held that Ranjit Singh was inducted as a sub tenant. Civil Revision No. 2098 of 2008 4 Therefore, the view formulated by the two Courts below is one view which is possible and is not perverse. Taking one and two lines from evidence here and there, Mr. Gupta desire that this Court should re- appreciate and re-appraise the evidence as the Courts below have misread the evidence. Since I have held that the two Courts below have formulated the one view which is possible, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 23, 2008 “DK”