IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1991 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision:25.02.2009 Firm M/s Chanan Ram Lal Chand, Karyana Merchant and others ...Petitioners versus Prem Chand and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: None for the petitioners. Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the respondents-landlord. 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. Having regard to the fact that the case is of the year, 2001 and the case has been on board for quite some time, I proceed to examine the case on the basis of records and pass this order with due assistance of the counsel for the respondents for reference to facts and law. 2. The petition for eviction filed under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, was sought on the grounds of sub-letting, cessation of the tenant to occupy the building and on the ground of non payment of rent. As regards the ground of sub-letting, it was contended Civil Revision No.1991 of 2001(O&M) - 2 - that the ground floor had been sub let to one tenant and the first floor had been sublet to another by name, Karnail Singh. The petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller rejecting the contentions of the landlord and in the appeal filed by the landlord, the Appellate Authority upheld the claim of the landlord. On a vital aspect regarding sub-letting of the first floor to Karnail Singh, even maintaining the findings of the Rent Controller on all other aspects of the case. The order of eviction followed by rendering of a finding that the portion of the property had been sublet by the tenant to another person without written consent of the landlord. 3. Before the Courts below, the contention was that the original tenancy in favour of the tenant had provided for the right to the tenant to create a sub lease and therefore, the action for eviction was not maintainable. In support of the contention that the tenant had given up possession of his property even during the tenure of the tenancy when the tenant had a right to sub lease, he produced a rent receipt dated 30.11.1970. The rent receipt was found by the Appellate Authority to be a fabricated document on the basis of an expert's report and its own examination of the document tendered by the sub-tenant. The forged nature of the document as found by the Appellate Court is essential by a question of fact and I take the document as not valid, as found already by the Court below. 4. If the rent receipt produced by Karnail Singh had not been established, the whole case has to be considered from the point of view of the admitted premise that Karnail Singh was a sub-tenant and Civil Revision No.1991 of 2001(O&M) - 3 - whether the sub-tenancy had been created during the period when the tenant was a contractual tenant under the rent deed that stipulated the period of lease from 01.09.1970 to 31.03.1971. If such a lease were to have been created during the sub-tenancy of the original lease period, the creation of sub-tenancy by the tenant could not be held to be actionable. But if the sub-tenancy had been created subsequent to the contractual tenancy the effect thereafter will have to be seen in the context of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other decisions of this Hon'ble Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied the decision in Anand Nivas Private Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji's Pedhi and others, reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 414, that the tenant person remaining in possession after the determination of tenancy shall become a statutory tenant, but he cannot enforce the terms of original tenancy. This decision was rendered in the context of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act,1947 where the sub-lessee from a statutory tenant claimed protection against eviction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a tenant's entitlement to sublet under the terms of the lease should not be exercised after the lease period had expired and when the tenant held a right only to possession as statutory tenant. Yet another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Singh (dead) v. Dalip Chand and others, reported in 1995(1) RCR 528, affirms the same principle when it said in the context of interpretation under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, that if a sub lease is a ground for eviction, the prior permission granted under the contract after Civil Revision No.1991 of 2001(O&M) - 4 - the contract had expired could not be pressed into service. This decision squarely answers the point raised by the sub-tenant. This Hon'ble Court also considered the same issue whether acquiescence could be set up by a sub tenant and answer was obtained through the decision in Kartar Singh v. Shri Vijay Kumar and another, reported in 1978(1) RLR 603, where it was laid down that the adjective “written” to the expression “consent” clearly spelt out that any other form of consent which was not in writing could not be used in an action by a landlord seeking for ejectment. The decision of the Appellate Authority in the light of the decisions referred to above conforms to law and evidence and there is no scope for intervention in revision. 6. The Civil revision is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.02.2009 sanjeev