The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing sub-letting with evidence of exclusive possession and valuable consideration, and the burden of proof on the landlord to show sub-letting.

J.S.Narang, J.

1. Smt. Nirmal Kanta wife of Shri T.R. Bhandari, Advocate filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for seeking ejectment of the tenant, i.e. Ashok Kumar and Lachhman Singh from the shop described as the demised premises.

2. The claim of Smt. Nirmal Kanta is that she being the landlord had rented out the demised premises to respondent No. 1 Shri Ashok Kumar as tenant at the rate of Rs. 225/- P.M. In support thereof a rent note was executed.

3. The ejectment has been sought on the ground that the tenant has not paid the rent from March 2, 1982 upto the date of filing the petition. Secondly, the conduct of the tenant is such that it is a constant nuisance being caused to the landlord as well as to the neighbourers. Thirdly, wants to construct first floor on the demised premises, which is not being allowed to be constructed by the tenant. Fourthly, Lachhman Singh respondent No. 2 has been inducted as a sub-tenant by respondent No. 1, the tenant and that such induction has been made without the consent/permission of the landlord. Fifthly, respondent No. 1 got installed electric meter in the demised premises in his name. Sixthly, the respondent No. 1 is making an effort to establish a title in his own favour in respect of the demised premises.

4. Upon the pleadings of the parties, following issue was framed :

(i) Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from the demised premises upon the grounds mentioned in the petition ? OPP.

(ii) Relief.

5. The parties led their respective oral as well as documentary evidence before the Rent Controller. Upon consideration of the evidence of both the parties, returned a finding in favour of the tenant by holding that he is not liable to be ejected from the demised premises upon the grounds mentioned in the petition. Resultantly, the petition was dismissed.

6. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 13.8.1983 passed by the Rent Controller, the respondent landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller vide judgment dated 14.6.1984. It has been directed that the tenant shall put the landlord in possession of the demised premises within three months.

7. The present petition has been filed by the tenant challenging the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Authority.

8. The petitioner appeared as his own witness and categorically averred that Lachhman Singh respondent No. 2 works as a Tailor Master and that he sits outside the shop and works upon sewing machine which is generated with feet. It has also been contended that he has not been given any portion on rent, therefore, he does not charge any rent from him. The respondent No. 2 works as a Tailor Master for the purpose of augmenting the business of the petitioner. It is at a given point of time when one has to buy a piece of cloth or get the clothes stitched, the measurements are taken by the tailor master for determining the length of cloth required for the said purpose. Lachhman Singh also appeared as a witness supporting the claim of the tenant. He has categorically stated that he has not taken any possession of any portion of the tenanted premises or that he has paid any rent or any consideration in respect thereof. The Rent Controller recorded a finding that Lachhman Singh can at best be taken as a licensee of Ashok Kumar, thus, the question of sub- letting does not arise.

9. On the other hand, the claim of the respondent-landlord is that the averment of the tenant and also that of Lachman Singh stands belied from the report submitted by the Local Commissioner appointed by the Rent Controller to the effect that he was found sitting inside the shop and that the sewing machine was also lying inside. The contention is that this evidence has not been rebutted and therefore, the plea of Lachhman Singh and Ashok Kumar that the Tailor Master sits outside the shop could not