A rent note executed by a landlord in favor of an alleged tenant may be a sham transaction if there is no evidence that the tenant was ever put in possession of the premises and the landlord has not taken any action to evict the alleged subtenants for several years after learning of the sub-letting.

Ashok Bhan, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of the three revision petitions No. 2099 (Mohinder Singh v. Surinder Singh etc.), 2100 (Sub-hash Chander v. Surinder Singh etc.) and 2170 (Sewa Ram v. Surinder Singh etc.), all the three pertaining to the year 1985. Facts are being taken from C.R. 2100 of 1985

2. One Kartar Singh was the original owner of three shops which were built by him in 1969-70. He was settled in England. He died on January 1, 1982. The ejectment petition filed by the Legal Representatives of Kartar Singh, Landlord (hereinafter referred to as the landlord). According to the allegations made in the ejectment petition, Kartar Singh had let out these three shops on rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month in the year 1971 to Shingara Singh. Ejectment petition has been filed on the ground (i) that Shingara Singh has not paid the arrears of rent since 1982; and (ii) that Shingara Singh has sub-let the shops taken by him on rent to Subhash Chander, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 2), without the written consent of the landlord.

3. Shingara Singh in his written statement has averred that after about two years of the taking of the premises in dispute on lease from Kartar Singh, he constructed his own shop and as such he wanted to vacate the shop in dispute; that Subhash Chander approached and requested him to sub-let the shop to him. Shingara Singh initially refused to sublet the shop to Subhash Chander but assured him that he had very good relations with Kartar Singh, landlord and that he would talk to him and on this assurance Shingara Singh handed over the possession of the shop in dispute to Subhash Chander.

4. Subhash Chander in his written statement alleged that Shingara Singh and Kartar Singh, deceased are related to each other, that the premises in dispute were never let out to Shingara Singh and that he (Shingara Singh) would not occupy the premises in dispute; that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between Kartar Singh and Shingara Singh; that Shingara Singh had the authority from Kartar Singh to rent out the premises in dispute that Shingara Singh leased out the premises in dispute to him in the month of November 1971 at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-; that he had paid the rent to Shingara Singh upto December 31, 1982. In the additional pleas taken, it was stated that Shingara Singh has three shops of his own out of which one was occupied by him for own out of which one was occupied by him for his own out of which one was occupied by him for his own business and the other two shops were let out by him to others; that there was no occasion for Shingara Singh to take the shop in dispute from Kartar Singh under the circumstances.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether respondent No.1 has already paid the arrears of rent as alleged and no rent is due from him? OPRL

2. Whether respondent No. 1 has sublet the demised premises to respondent No. 2, without the written consent of the applicant? OPA.

3. Whether respondent No.2 is a direct tenant under respondent No. 1 at monthly rent of Rs. 115/- as alleged by respondent No. 2 if so, to what effect? OPR 2

3-A Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the applicants and respondents ? OPA

4. Relief.

6. Under Issue No. 1, Rent Controller decided that Shingara Singh was in arrears of rent while other respondents had paid the rent up to December 31, 1982 to Shingara Singh at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. On issues No. 2, 3, 3-A, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between Kartar Singh and Shingara Singh and that Shingara Singh had sublet the premises in favour of other respondents; that the other respondents were not tenants under Shingara Singh. On the basis of the findings recorded, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the sub tenants namely Mohinder Singh, Sewa Ram and Subhash Chander, res