Case: M/s. Delhi Stationers &amp; Printers Vs. Rajendra Kumar

2. The appellant is the tenant of premises consisting of three rooms a kitchen and a toilet, situated at Jaipur. The respondent (landlord) filed a suit for the eviction of the appellant on the ground of reasonable and bona fide personal necessity andof the premises without ‘his consent. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court on both the grounds On appeal the suit was dismissed by the Additional District Judge The High Court, in second appeal, reversed the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge passed a decree for eviction against the appellant on the ground that the appellant hasor otherwise parted with the possession of the premises without the consent of the landlord.3. In the site plan (Ex.the premises which have been let to the appellant are marked asThe adjacent room marked ashas been let out by the respondent to Mr. Mahendra Singh, theof the appellant. The case of the respondent is that the appellant hasa part of the premises to Mahendra Singh and that he is residing therein. The Additional District Judge has found that Mahendra Singh is employed by the appellant and is residing in the room markedas a tenant under the respondent. It has been found that he has been using the latrine and kitchen which form part of the premises let out to the appellant Mahendra Singh being theof the appellants and in the service of the appellant could not be taken to be amerely by the use of the kitchen and latrine and that for sub tenancy it is essential that the possession of Mahendra Singh upon the premises must be exclusive. It was also found that the exclusive possession was not proved by the evidence of the respondent and much less any proof of rent paid to the appellant. The High Court, in second appeal has reversed the said findings of the Additional District Judge relying upon the evidence of Mahendra Singh (DW2) who has admitted that the premises markedare utilised by him and Vishnu Devwho has stated inthat the appellant is not in occupation of the premises and portion markedhas been in occupation of Mahendra Singh. The High Court has held that the appellant hasor otherwise parted with the premises without the permission of the landlord and that being so, the appellant is liable for eviction.

Reasoning:
6. If the instant case is considered in the light of the aforesaid principles laid down by this Court it cannot be said that the appellant has eitheror parted with the possession of a part of the premises in favour of Mahendra Singh who isof the appellant and is also employed with the appellant. Mahendra Singh is a tenant under the respondent in respect of room markedin the site plan (Ex.The mere ‘user of the kitchen and latrine by Mahendra Singh while residing in the portion let out to him by the respondent cannot mean that the appellant hasthe exclusive right to enjoy the kitchen and latrine and has parted with the legal possession of the said part of the premises in favour of Mahendrainto consideration the aforesaid circumstances this Court held that the tenant had parted with the possession of the premises as envisaged in Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. This decision, in our opinion, does not lend any assistance to the respondent and that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as mentioned above, it cannot be said that the appellant had parted with the possession of a part of the leasedfind that after considering the evidence the first appellate Court has decided this issue against the respondent and the second appeal of the respondent was admitted only on the ground ofand no question of law was framed with regard to eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide personal necessity. We cannot, therefore, examine the finding recorded by the first appellate Court on the question of need of the landlord.