Cr No. 5974 of 2003. Case: Raj Kumar Vs Sham Sunder Mehta. High Court of Punjab (India)

Case NumberCr No. 5974 of 2003
CounselFor Appellant: S.S. Grewal, Advocate and For Respondents: V.K. Jindal, Senior Advocate and Abhinav Oberoi, Advocate
JudgesDr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.
IssueProperty Law
Judgement DateAugust 04, 2014
CourtHigh Court of Punjab (India)

Judgment:

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.

1. Landlord-Sham Sunder Mehta, had sought ejectment of the tenant inter alia on the ground of subletting, material impairment in the value and utility of the premises and requirement of the premises for his own use and necessity. Despite the fact that the landlord had contested the petition only on the ground of personal bonafide necessity while leaving all other grounds of ejectment but had lost at the legal hustings even on that count. The appellate authority reversing the findings of the Rent Controller adjudicated the ground of subletting against the tenant and ordered his eviction as also of the alleged sub-tenant.

2. Tenant, Raj Kumar has come up in the revision petition claiming that the alleged sub-tenant is none else but his son who is helping him in carrying out the business in the shop in dispute. It is claimed that the appellate authority has gone far and beyond testimony of the witnesses in ordering ejectment of the tenant.

3. Counsel for the respondent-landlord on the other hand has urged that subletting is a secret arrangement for which direct and clear evidence is seldom available. It is claimed that notwithstanding the fact that sub-lessee is son of the tenant, he being in exclusive possession of the shop, is none else but sub-lessee making himself liable for ejectment. It is claimed that judgment of the appellate authority cannot be faltered on any count.

4. Counsel for the parties have been heard while going through the grounds of revision petition, impugned orders and other facts and circumstances available on the paper book.

5. Shop in dispute is under tenancy of revisionist Raj Kumar since long. Revisionist Raj Kumar is the tenant while Sham Sunder Mehta respondent No. 1 is the landlord and Vijay Kumar respondent No. 2 is son of revisionist Raj Kumar. He is alleged to be a sub-lessee under the revisionist Raj Kumar. Neither relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent No. 1 and the revisionist is questioned nor the fact of respondent No. 2 being son of the revisionist is under challenge.

6. It is strange that the appellate authority without giving any reasons revived the issue of subletting even though in clear and categorical terms, it had been given up by the landlord during decision of the petition by the Rent Controller, Rajpura. Acting upon, inter alia, the plea of non-pressing of ground of subletting by the landlord, decision had been rendered by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT