Civil Revision No.2996 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2996 of 2008 Date of decision: May 23, 2008. Mangal Singh & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Sukhdev Singh & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 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? Present: Shri Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is at the instance of the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted from the shop situated at Pheruman Road, Rayya Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar (in short the demised premises) by the Rent Controller, Baba Bakala vide his order dated 6.3.2006, which has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar vide its judgment and order dated 3.4.2008. The respondent-landlords filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short the Act) against the petitioners, inter-alia, alleging that the demised premises Civil Revision No.2996 of 2008 -: 2 :- was rented out to petitioner No.1 at a monthly rent of Rs.400/- with effect from January, 1992. The rent was subsequently increased to Rs.600/-, followed by a fresh tenancy in favour of petitioner No.1 with effect from 1.6.2001 with the enhanced rent of Rs.700/- per month. The fresh tenancy commenced with a rent note dated 7.6.2001 executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of the respondent-landlords. The respondents sought eviction of petitioner No.1 on the grounds of:- (i) non-payment of rent; and (ii) that he has sub-let the demised premises to petitioner No.2 by handing over absolute possession thereof to petitioner No.2 from whom, he is getting handsome rent as well. As the arrears of rent were tendered by petitioner No.1 on appearance before the Rent Controller, the first ground of eviction, namely, non-payment of rent no longer survived. The parties, however, went on trial on the second ground, namely, alleged sub-letting in favour of petitioner No.2. While the respondents averred that petitioner No.1 has parted with the possession and has surrendered his tenancy right in favour of petitioner No.2 for a consideration, the petitioners took a plea that petitioner No.2 in fact was an employee of petitioner No.1 and was helping the latter in running the business of Guru Nanak Dairy. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. On consideration thereof, the Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority have concurrently held that petitioner No.1 has inducted petitioner No.2 as a sub-tenant and has not only handed over the physical possession but even right to retain possession of the demised premises has also been surrendered in favour of petitioner No.2, without the written consent of the respondents. Consequently, eviction of the petitioners from Civil Revision No.2996 of 2008 -: 3 :- the demised premises has been ordered. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at length, perused the impugned judgments and have also taken into consideration the relevant evidence referred to by the learned counsel during the course of hearing. In my considered view, no interference is called for in the impugned orders by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In order to prove that petitioner No.2 is the sole proprietor of Guru Nanak Dairy, which is being run from the demised premises, the respondents have led documentary evidence comprising of Ex.PW5/1 and PW5/2. They have also brought the photographs Ex.P3 to P5 on record to establish that “Guru Nanak Dairy” is operating from the demised premises. Besides this, petitioner No.2 (Darshan Kumar) himself has candidly admitted his main control over the business of 'Guru Nanak Dairy' being run with the help of his son. The plea put-forth by the 1st petitioner that petitioner No.2 is his employee, stands falsified as no evidence regarding employment of petitioner No.2, or of the salary, if any, paid to him or of the terms and conditions of the alleged employment, has been led. Instead, the petitioners made an unsuccessful attempt to create evidence comprising of Forms B & F (Ex.DW1/1 & DW1/2), brought on record through Raj Kumar, Clerk in the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner. Both these forms were prepared on 22.7.2005 whereas the eviction petition was filed on 26.7.2004. In fact, both the forms came into existence after framing of issues by the Rent Controller. The plea taken by petitioner No.2 that Mangal Singh (petitioner No.1) is called at the shop as and when his presence is required, is yet another strong circumstance relied upon by the Civil Revision No.2996 of 2008 -: 4 :- Courts below to hold that petitioner No.1 is no longer in physical or legal possession of the demised premises. The respondent-landlords have, thus, successfully proved that the sub-tenant is in exclusive possession of the demised premises and that being so, it was for the 1st petitioner to prove that he has not sub-let the tenanted shop, more so when the petitioners do not even whisper any consent by the respondents for retention of exclusive possession thereof by petitioner No.2. [Ref: Vaishakhi Ram & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani, 2008(2) Indian Civil Cases 748 (SC)] Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this Revision Petition which is dismissed in limine. However, in order to enable petitioner No.2 to make some alternative arrangement and subject to the petitioners paying the entire arrears of rent, three months time from today is granted to the petitioners to vacate the premises. No order as to costs. May 23, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge