CR No.8296 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.8296 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 8.8.2011 Ramesh Chand ......Petitioner(s) Versus Anil Kumar & Ors. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 18.11.2009 of the Rent Controller, Gurgaon whereby his eviction was ordered from the demised premises and the order dated 3.9.2010 whereby his appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that ejectment of the petitioner was ordered on the ground of subletting. It is useful to refer to the order passed by the Rent Controller which reads thus: “The another ground of ejectment is subletting. The respondents no.1 to 9 are alleged to have sublet the shop to respondent No.10 Budhram who is alleged to be in exclusive possession of the shop whereas according to respondent No.1, he is doing cloth business and money lending business in the shop and presence of Budhram, defendant No.10 on the shop is customary as the cloth merchants keep such tailors on their shops for convenience. In this case, the respondent no.1 has taken the stand that Budhram is his paid employee. However, the stand of the respondent No.1 stands CR No.8296 of 2010(O&M) 2 falsified as RW2 Budhram in his cross-examination has deposed that he is giving Rs.200/- per month to Ramesh as rent. It is also there in his statement the shop is lying empty and no goods or articles of Ramesh are lying in the shop. Sewing machine belongs to him and it is he who opens and closes the shop. Statement of respondent no.10 Budhram is sufficient to hold that respondents no.1 to 9 have sublet the shop and now they are not in control and possession of the shop. The control and possession of the shop is with respondent no.10 Budhram who is paying rent to respondent no.1 Ramesh. So subletting of the shop by respondents no.1 to 9 to respondent no.1 is proved. Consent of the landlord for subletting is not proved nor it is the case of the respondents. On this count, reliance can be placed on Bhag Singh Vs. Parkash Chand and others 1981 (1) RLR 328, Radhey Shyam through his Lrs Vs. Arjun Singh Kirpa Ram Charitable Trust, Rewari and another 2008 (2) RLR 324. This issue is accordingly decided in petitioners' favour and against respondents as indicated above.” Even the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Rent Controller observed as under: “From the statement of respondent no.10 and other evidence and connecting circumstances of the file, it is proved that the demised shop has been sublet by respondent no.1 to respondent nos.2 to 10 on rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. It is further proved that the demised shop otherwise is lying vacant and respondent nos.1 to 9 are not carrying on any business from said premises and the same is in exclusive possession of respondent no.10. To prove sub letting, the landlord is required to prove that the tenant has parted with exclusive possession of the demised premises for a monetary consideration. In this case, both the CR No.8296 of 2010(O&M) 3 ingredients are proved not only from the evidence led by the petitioners but by the evidence of the respondents. The respondent no.10 was examined by the respondents in their evidence. When he stated in his cross-examination that he was in exclusive possession over the demised shop and was paying Rs.200/- per month to respondent no.1, he was not declared hostile by the respondents. Meaning thereby, they admitted his said version to be true.” Thus, on appreciation of evidence a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Courts below that the petitioner had parted with the possession of the demised premises in favour of respondent No.3. No fault can be found with the aforesaid findings recorded by the Courts below. Even otherwise, it has been stated before this Court that in execution of the impugned orders, the respondent-landlord has taken possession of the demised premises. No merits. Dismissed. August 8, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE