Civil Revision No.679 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.679 of 2001 Date of decision 19.01.2009 Ghisa Ram .....Appellant versus Satya Narian Bhagwan Trust and others .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.4. K. Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The revision petition is directed against successive orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The complaint of the landlord to entitle him to eviction is a case of alleged sub- tenancy by the original tenant Teeka Ram. It was further contended that the sub-tenancy was in favour of the second respondent and the second respondent had in turn made sub-tenancy in favour of the third respondent. The authorities below accepted the contention of the landlord that the original tenancy had been shown to be only in the name of Teeka Ram and found that the possession of respondent No.3 could not be said to be with the permission of the landlord and hence eviction was ordered. 2. Before me, it is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that even if the tenancy in favour of the Teeka Ram were to be accepted, it was clearly in evidence that the landlord had issued receipts in the name of firm Teeka Ram and Ghisa Ram and there Civil Revision No.679 of 2001 -2- had been consequently a case of tenancy by implication. It turned out that there had been reconstitution of the firm when the firm was changed as Ghisa Ram & Sham Sunder and still later, the firm obtained the name on a further reconstitution Ghisa Ram & Ram Niwas. 3. It is too well settled that sub-tenancy is invariably a secret act between a tenant and sub-tenant and there cannot be any direct evidence of the transaction. While it may not be possible to expect any document for proof of a transaction by tenant to sub-tenant, there is a consistent line of authorities which have laid down that unless the exclusive possession of the building or a part of the building is parted with by the tenant in favour of the sub-tenant, the sub-tenancy itself cannot be said to be established. The exclusive possession of either of the sub-tenant of R-2 and R-3 was indeed not shown to have been made but on the other hand there is clear evidence that Ghisa Ram had always been associated with the original tenant Teeka Ram. The reconstitution of firms that have taken place over a period of time and the production by the tenant of rent receipts signed on behalf of the landlord standing in the name of Ghisa Ram not merely reputes the contention of the landlord that there was a sub-tenancy but actually proves a tenancy in favour of Ghisa Ram. The creation of tenancy under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act could be either in expressed words or by implication. Section 111 of the Transfer of property Act which entitles termination of tenancy could be forfeited under Section 112, if there had been receipt of rent by the landlord. There is a voluntary receipt of rent by the landlord from the tenant. The effect of receipt of rent by a landlord from a person in possession has a clear effect of creating a tenancy in his favour, unless it is shown that the person to whom the receipt is issued had been Civil Revision No.679 of 2001 -3- issued with such receipt on behalf the original tenant himself. If it is issued, on the other hand, independently, there is no scope for the landlord to contend that there is a sub-tenancy. The approach of the authorities below rejecting the legal effect of the receipt of the rent by the landlord from a person called as sub-tenant does not accord with law and, in my view, betrays legal impropriety that deserves to be corrected by intervention in revision. 4. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. ( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE 19.01.2009 A. KAUNDAL