C.R. No.588 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.588 of 2008 Date of Decision: 3.4.2008 P.C. Cherian .....Petitioner Vs. Smt. Rita Bhatti and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J Challenge in this revision petition is to orders dated 24.9.2004 and 6.11.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller, and the Appellate Authority Chandigarh respectively, directing the petitioner’s ejectment, as also dismissing his appeal. Respondent no.1, filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner from Booth No.158, Sector 35-C, on the grounds of non payment of rent from 1.8.2000, sub-letting of the tenanted premises to respondent no.2 and on the ground of his personal necessity. It was pleaded that the petitioner had sub-let the tenanted premises to respondent no.2 Jasbir Singh, who is in possession of the booth and is running his business. Upon notice of the petition, the petitioner and respondent no.2 denied the allegations in the petition and asserted that respondent no.2 had joined the petitioner as a partner and was, therefore, entitled to conduct his business from the tenanted premises. The learned Rent Controller, framed the following C.R. No.588 of 2008 2 issues :- “1. Whether tender made on 18.7.2002 is short and invalid ? OPP. 2. Whether respondent is liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises due to non-clearing the arrears of rent ? OPP 3. Whether respondent has sub-letted the tenanted premises without express permission of the petitioner ? OPP 4. Whether premises are bonafide required by the petitioner for her personal use and occupation ? OPP 5. Whether petition is liable to be dismissed in view of preliminary objection no.3 ? OPR 6. Relief.” Issues no.1 and 2 relating to non payment of rent and were decided against respondent no.1 Under issue no.3, it was held that the petitioner had sub-let the tenanted premises to Jasbir Singh. Under issue no.4, the landlord’s plea of personal necessity, was upheld. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner and respondent no.2 filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, vide order dated 6.11.2007, dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to establish sub- letting, a landlord is required to establish that the tenant has parted with possession of the demised premises, for consideration. The landlord has failed to establish the ingredients of subletting. A tenant is entitled to induct a partner, so as to conduct his business. It is further submitted that C.R. No.588 of 2008 3 the landlord has failed to establish the second ingredient of sub-letting namely, consideration for parting with possession and, therefore, the findings returned by the Courts below are illegal and void. As regards the plea of personal necessity, it is submitted that the landlady’s assertion that her husband had retired on 30.6.1996 as Principal, Chandigarh College of Architecture and the premises were, therefore, required for her husband to establish a professional consultancy, are false. The landlady has failed to produce on record any cogent evidence in support of the said assertion. Counsel for the respondent-caveator, on the other hand, submits that the impugned orders do not suffer from any error, whether on fact or of law and, therefore, the concurrent findings returned by the learned Rent Controller, as also the Appellate Authority be upheld. It is argued that the petitioner has admitted that Jasbir Singh is in possession of the tenanted premises though asserting that he is the petitioner’s partner. It was for the petitioner to establish the partnership , by cogent evidence or produce the partnership deed. The petitioner had failed to place on record any deed of partnership or any document that would indicate such an arrangement between the petitioner and respondent no.2. The Courts below, therefore, rightly ordered the petitioner’s ejectment. It is further argued that the plea of personal necessity had been concurrently upheld by the Courts below and in the absence of any material to suggest the malafides of this plea, the present petition be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The concurrent findings of fact returned by the Rent Controller C.R. No.588 of 2008 4 and the Appellate Authority do not call for interference. Revisional jurisdiction is confined to an appraisal of impugned judgements and orders, so as to discern any error of jurisdiction or of law or such significant error or fact, as may have led to a miscarriage of justice. The impugned orders, in my considered opinion, do not suffer from any of the above disability. Respondent no.1 alleged that the petitioner had sub-let the premises to respondent no.2. The petitioner admitted the possession of respondent no.2 but in response asserted a positive plea that respondent no.2 was his partner. In discharge of the his onus to establish the alleged partnership, the petitioner was required to produce the partnership deed or such other document akin thereto as would disclose the existence of a partnership. As concurrently held by the Courts below, no such document, was placed on record. Respondent no.2, the alleged partner, did not step into the witness box to depose in favour of the alleged partnership. It was, therefore, held that as neither any copy of the partnership deed nor any other evidence was forthcoming to prove the fact of partnership the tenant had sublet the tenanted premises. As regards the submissions by counsel for the petitioner that the landlady failed to establish that the tenant had parted with possession of the tenanted premises for consideration, suffice it to say that where a tenant sub-lets the tenanted premises, it is a near impossibility for a landlord to produce evidence, with respect to the financial arrangements between the tenant and the sub-tenant. As regards the plea of personal necessity, the concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below do not merit interference. The landlady”s husband, retired from a Government Architectural College, C.R. No.588 of 2008 5 Chandigarh, and wanted to start a consultancy. Though, it is true that the necessity, must show an element of need and not a mere desire or a whim, I find no circumstance in the present case to hold that the requirement pleaded and established by the landlady and concurrently accepted by the Courts below was anything but a bonafide necessity to occupy the premises. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the revision petition is dismissed. 3.4.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE