CR No.8417 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.8417 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:05.01.2011. Raj Pal ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Bimla Wati and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. R.K.Handa, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The landlady (Bimla Wati) filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] for ejectment of the petitioner (Raj Pal) and his son Amit Vaid (respondent No.2) from the ground floor of shop forming part of property No.1895 (old) and 965/17 (new), situated at Katra Mohar Singh, Amritsar [for short “demised premises”] on two grounds, namely bona fide necessity and subletting. The learned Rent Controller framed issue No.3 with regard to subletting and issue No.4 in respect of the bona fide necessity of the landlady and ordered ejectment of the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant vide his order dated 21.12.2006 after deciding issue No.4 in favour of the landlady and issue No.3 against her. This led to the filing of two appeals bearing Rent Appeal No.126 of 2007 titled as “Raj Pal Vs. Smt. Bimla Wati and another” by the tenant Raj Pal against the finding recorded on issue No.4 and Rent Appeal No.79 of 2007 titled as “Smt. Bimla Wati Vs. Raj Pal and another” by the landlady against the finding recorded on issue No.3. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 06.09.2010, CR No.8417 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ****** reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller on issue No.3 by holding that the demised premises was sublet by Raj Pal (petitioner) to Amit Vaid (respondent No.2) maintained the eviction and at the same time dismissed the appeal filed by Raj Pal tenant against the finding recorded on issue No.4. Against the order of the Appellate Authority passed in separate appeals, the present revision has been filed by the tenant Raj Pal alone in which he has challenged the finding recorded on issue Nos.3 and 4. Undisputedly, eviction order against the tenant can be maintained on anyone of the grounds provided in the Act. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked by the Court to assail the finding recorded on issue No.3 which has been reversed by the Appellate Authority. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding on issue No.3 could not have been reversed without recording a firm finding that Raj Pal has transferred the possession of the demised premises to Amit Vaid for a valuable consideration. It is also urged that Amit Vaid is none else but the son of Raj Pal and his mere presence on the demised premises does not mean that it had been sublet to him without written consent of the landlady. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his able assistance. A firm finding has been recorded by the learned Appellate Authority while coming to the conclusion that the demised premises has been sublet by Raj Pal to Amit Vaid. The available evidence on record clearly indicates that Amit Vaid is in exclusive possession over the demised premises and is running a proprietorship firm in the name and style of 'Amit Bhai Jewellers'. The landlady had examined AW1 Rajpal Singh, Ex. Asstt. Income Tax Department, AW2 Avinash Mehta, Senior Supervisor, Telephone Department and AW7 V.K.Kansra, Clerk, Central Bank of India, Guru Bazar Branch, Amritsar who have proved the exclusive possession of Amit Vaid over the demised premises. Moreover, there is not an iota of evidence available on record as to what business is being carried out by Raj Pal in the demised premises. The only business being run in the demised premises is by Amit Vaid who is doing a jewellary shop in it. His father Raj Pal is neither the partner nor inducted as an employee to show that he had not parted with the CR No.8417 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ****** possession of the demised premises. In view thereof, I am satisfied with the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority on issue No.3 while maintaining the order of eviction against the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. January 05, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE