Subletting of premises by a tenant without the written consent of the landlord is a ground for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act, 1958.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This is tenants petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but eviction order was passed in appeal.

2. The landlady, Smt. Harnam Kaur sought the ejectment of her tenant Lal Chand from the shop in dispute on the ground of subletting by the tenant to one Kuldip Singh and for non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from 1st of November, 1966 till the filing of the application which was filed on 6th of November, 1974.

3. Earlier one Lal Chand son of Shri Ram was the landlord and owner of the premises in dispute. Smt. Harnam Kaur purchased the said building-vide sale deed dated 24th of September, 1974 from said Lal Chand and thus became the landlady qua tenant Lal Chand son of Durga Dass. In the sale deed the landlady was also given the right to recover the entire rent due from the tenant. After the sale, notice dated 22nd October, 1974 Exhibit AW 7/2 was also given to the tenant to which reply dated 17th of October, 1974 Exhibit A W 7/4 was received. According to the landlady the shop in dispute was let out to Lal Chand vide rent note dated 1st of November, 1966, copy Exhibit AW 1/1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- per month. Afterwards he let out the premises to one Kuldip Singh without the written consent of the landlady and hence he was liable to ejectment. In the written statement filed by the tenant Lal Chand, he denied the said allegations. He pleaded that Lal Chand son of Siri Ram was not the owner of the premises in dispute and therefore, Smt. Harnam Kaur could not become the owner/landlady. According to the tenant, he got the property from Partap Chand and he had been paying the rent to him. The execution of the rent note Exhibit AW 1/1 was also denied. It was also denied that he had sublet the premises and transferred the possession to Kuldip Singh respondent No. 2.

4. In the written statement filed on behalf on Kuldip Singh the alleged sub-tenant, he admitted that the premises in question were owned by Lal Chand and were rented out on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. He claimed that the tenancy of Lal Chand tenant and his was joint. It was denied that it was sublet to him.

The learned Rent Controller found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between Lal Chand and the landlady. However, the plea of the landlady of subletting was negatived. As regards the tender of rent on the first date or hearing, it was found the landlady was not entitled to the arrears of rent prior to the date of sale and, therefore, the tender made the first date of hearing was valid. Ultimately ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of subletting and came to the conclusion that from the facts proved on the record and admitted by the tenant Lal Chand himself in his statement, it was amply proved that Lal Chand tenant has transferred his rights under lease to Kuldip Singh and thus was liable for eviction on that account. Consequently eviction order was passed.

5. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner submitted that the Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that Kuldip Singh who was in occupation of the premises was not a sub-tenant but a licencee but that finding has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily on surmises and conjectures. According to the learned counsel, even if Kuldip Singh was in occupation of the premises along with tenant Lal Chand he could not be said to be a sub-tenant unless there was evidence to show that he was in exclusive possession thereof. He cited Dev Verma v. Ajit Singh & others, 1965 C.L.J. 341. Shiv Parshad v. Brij Lal, 1966 P.L.R. 419, and Smt. Parkash Wanti v. Rattan Lal Jain and another, 1976 R.C.R. 136.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record. I do not find any merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It was never pleaded by the tenant Lal Chand that Kuldip Si