IMPORTANT POINT
High Court has to satisfy itself whether the question of subletting was properly decided by the courts below.

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—

1. This appeal by special leave has been filed by Smt. Shashi Jain-landlady, assailing the final judgment and order dated 23.04.1998 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 4062 of 1997.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are as follows:-

2.1) On 24.07.1961, the mother of Smt. Shashi Jain-landlady-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “landlady”] had inducted Tarsem Lal as a tenant in the premises, i.e. House No. 971, Block-1 consisting of three rooms, one verandah, attached courtyard, open space and latrine, etc. situated on Rajpura Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, on a monthly rent of Rs.30/- vide written rent deed (Ex.-AW5/A]. On 12.11.1973, Khushi Ram had submitted application Form D-1 in the office of the Civil Supply Officer for getting ration card to his family members namely Smt. Lajwanti - wife, Tarsem Lal, Janak Raj, Harbans Lal, Kewal Krishan- sons and Avinash Kumari - daughter-in-law who all were living together in the demised premises on 01.04.1970, mother of the landlady suffered a consent decree of the court in regard to the demised premises jointly passed in favour of the landlady and her brother. Because of non-registration of the said decree, ownership rights could not be transferred in the name of the landlady and her brother.

2.2) On 14.03.1974, the mother of the landlady preferred an application for ejectment of Tarsem Lal-tenant on the ground of arrears of rent w.e.f April 1973 to May 1974, which amount later in was tendered by the tenant in the court. Again on 01.10.1974, the mother of the landlady had filed second application for ejectment of the tenant for non-payment of rent from June 1974 to October 1974.

3. It was the case of the landlady before the Rent Controller that the tenant did not tender the arrears of rent as claimed. The Rent Controller, Ludhiana, passed an ejectment order against the tenant. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority set aside the said order and held that since the landlady and her brother had already become the landlords of the demised premises, therefore, Tarsem Lal has to be held a tenant under them. The order of the First Appellate Authority was upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 11.04.1980. The special leave petition preferred against the order of the High Court came to be dismissed by this Court.

4. On 22.05.1982, the landlady had preferred an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rent Act”] for the ejectment of Tarsem Lal-tenant, inter alia, on the following grounds:-

[a] That respondent no.1 was in arrears of rent w.e.f. June 1974 onwards.

[b] That the respondent no.1 had converted the demised premises into the residence of the family of his married brother and sister, whereas it was rented out to him for his personal residence.

[c] That the landlady required the demised premises for her own personal use and occupation and also for use and occupation of her aged mother.

It appears from the record that later on by way of amendment, additional ground was also incorporated in the ejectment application, which read as under:

[d] That the respondent no. 1 without the written consent of the landlady had sub-let the demised premises to Rakesh Kumar-respondent no. 2, who is employed in Punjab Agricultural University as a messenger boy.

5. It was also the case of the landlady before the Rent Controller that Rakesh Kumar on 30.08.1983 had given a declaration in writing to his Department that he is paying Rs.150/- as monthly rent of the demised premises. Tarsem Lal the original tenant had shifted his residence in two rooms located at the backside of his ‘Dhaba’ (Restaurant]. Before that, the father of Rakesh Kumar used to reside in the demised premises and was drawing house rent from the Punjab Agricultural University, where he was employed as Tube-well Operator, in regard to the portion of the d