- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Resham Singh v. Raghbir Singh And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal challenged the judgment of a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 2006 of 1983. The revision had been filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
The appellant-landlord, Resham Singh, sought eviction of respondents Raghbir Singh (the tenant) and Kuldeep Singh, alleging that the premises were let to Raghbir Singh who had sub-let to Kuldeep Singh, and that rent was in arrears from 1-8-1980. The Rent Controller rejected the default ground but ordered eviction on sub-letting; the appellate authority dismissed the tenant’s appeal. The High Court set aside both orders, holding there was no sub-letting and that the respondents were not defaulters. The present proceedings are the landlord’s appeal against that High Court decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the High Court could interfere with the courts below on the question of sub-letting in revision.
- Whether, on the facts and evidence, sub-letting was established against the tenant.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- It was urged that Section 15(5) of the Act does not empower the High Court to set aside findings of fact.
Respondents’ Arguments
This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Dev Kumar v. Swaran Lata (1996) 1 SCC 25 | The question of sub-letting is a conclusion on a question of law derived from findings on record regarding (i) transfer of exclusive possession and (ii) consideration. | Supported the view that, while exercising Section 15(5) revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can examine whether sub-letting (treated as a question of law in this sense) was properly decided. |
| Kala v. Madho Parshad Vaidya (1998) 6 SCC 573 | To establish sub-letting, the landlord must prove exclusive possession of the alleged sub-tenant, a lessor-lessee relationship between tenant and sub-tenant, and that the tenant parted with possession exclusively. | Used to define the necessary ingredients and burden of proof for sub-letting, which the appellant was found not to have discharged. |
| Benjamin Premanand Rawade v. Anil Joseph Rawade (1998) 9 SCC 688 | Reiterated that sub-letting must be proved by showing exclusive possession and parting with possession, among other ingredients, with the burden on the landlord. | Reinforced the evidentiary requirements; the Court found absence of evidence of exclusive possession or a lessee-lessor relationship between the brothers. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first addressed the scope of Section 15(5) of the Act. It noted that the High Court may call for and examine records to satisfy itself about the “legality or propriety” of an order or proceeding. The Court explained that sub-letting is a conclusion on a question of law derived from factual findings on whether there was (i) transfer of exclusive possession and (ii) such transfer being for consideration. On this understanding, and consistent with Dev Kumar v. Swaran Lata, the Court held that the High Court, in revision under Section 15(5), had power to examine whether sub-letting was properly decided by the authorities below.
Turning to the merits, the Court reiterated the settled law that the onus to establish sub-letting lies on the landlord, requiring proof that the alleged sub-tenant was in exclusive possession, that a lessee-lessor relationship existed between tenant and sub-tenant, and that the tenant had parted with possession exclusively in the sub-tenant’s favour (as stated in Kala and Benjamin Premanand Rawade).
On the facts, it was not disputed that the respondents were brothers and that Respondent 1 (tenant Raghbir Singh) was absconding for a considerable period due to criminal proceedings, making his physical presence in the shop not possible. The Court held it was natural for the brother, Respondent 2 (Kuldeep Singh), to look after the shop, and that this circumstance would not amount to sub-letting.
The Court further found that there was no evidence that Raghbir Singh had parted with possession in favour of Kuldeep Singh, no evidence that Kuldeep Singh had exclusive possession, and no evidence of any lessee-lessor relationship between the brothers. Consequently, the High Court was justified in setting aside the eviction orders founded on sub-letting.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court’s order setting aside the Rent Controller and appellate authority decisions was upheld.
The direct effect is that the eviction order on the ground of sub-letting did not stand. The Court made no order as to costs and did not state any broader implications beyond applying settled principles on the burden and ingredients of sub-letting and the High Court’s revisional scrutiny under Section 15(5).
S.N Phukan, J.— This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No. 2006 of 1983. By the impugned judgment the petition filed under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short “the Act”) was allowed by setting aside both the judgments of the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority.
2. The appellant Resham Singh filed a petition for eviction of two respondents namely Raghbir Singh and Kuldeep Singh in respect of the disputed suit premises. According to the appellant the suit premises was let out to respondent Raghbir Singh but he sub-let it to Kuldeep Singh. It was also pleaded before the Rent Controller that the respondent was in arrears of rent from 1-8-1980. The Rent Controller decided the issue regarding default against the appellant landlord but ordered eviction of the respondent on the ground of sub-letting. The appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the appellate authority. The High Court by the impugned judgment set aside both the judgments and allowed the revision petition holding that there was no sub-letting and the respondents were not defaulters.
3. We have heard Mr Munni Lal Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Ms Rupinder Kaur Wasu, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. It has been urged that sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act does not empower the High Court to set aside the findings of fact. The said sub-section is quoted below:
“15. (5) The High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit.”
5. The question of sub-letting is a conclusion on a question of law derived from the findings on the materials on record as to the transfer of exclusive possession and as to the said transfer of possession being for consideration. While considering the said sub-section (5) the above view was also expressed by this Court in Dev Kumar v. Swaran Lata (1996) 1 SCC 25.
6. Sub-section (5) empowers the High Court either on application or in its own motion to call for an examination of the record for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and propriety of such orders or proceedings. In view of the above language of sub-section (5) we find that the High Court while exercising powers under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act has got the powers to satisfy itself as to whether the question of sub-letting which is a question of law was properly decided by the courts below. From the impugned judgment of the High Court we find that the High Court did not rightly find the ingredients of sub-letting. We, therefore, hold that the High Court was justified in setting aside the judgments of the courts below.
7. It is a settled position of law that to establish sub-letting the onus is on the landlord to prove through evidence that the sub-tenant was in exclusive possession of the property in question; that between the sub-tenant and the tenant there was a relationship of lessee and lessor and that possession of the premises in question was parted with exclusively by the tenant in favour of the sub-tenant. (See Kala v. Madho Parshad Vaidya (1998) 6 SCC 573 and Benjamin Premanand Rawade v. Anil Joseph Rawade (1998) 9 SCC 688.)
8. In the present appeal it is not disputed that both the respondents are brothers and Respondent 1 Raghbir Singh who was the tenant was involved in some criminal proceedings and he was absconding for a considerable period. Being an absconder it was not possible for the tenant, Respondent 1 Raghbir Singh to be physically present in the premises in question. It is natural to allow his brother Kuldeep Singh to look after the shop and this fact would not amount to sub-letting.
9. As stated above, it is a settled position of law that the burden of making a case of sub-letting is on the landlord/landlady. In the present case there is no evidence regarding parting of possession of the suit premises by Respondent 1 Raghbir Singh in favour of his brother Respondent 2 Kuldeep Singh and that the said Kuldeep Singh was in an exclusive possession of the suit premises. There is also no evidence of a relationship of lessee and lessor between the two brothers. For the reasons stated above we do not find any merit in the present appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.
Alert