A sub-tenant is not a necessary party to an ejectment petition filed against the tenant, and an order of ejectment against a sub-tenant is not sustainable if the sub-tenant is not in arrears of rent on the date the ejectment petition is filed.

Gokal Chand Mital, J.

1. Baldev Krishan filed an application for ejectment under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) against Raja Ram tenant on two grounds, one that he was in arrears of rent with effect from 1st Baisakh 2019 BK at the rate of Rs. 500/- per annum and the second that he had sub-let the premises to Kasturi Lal without his written consent. Since Kasturi Lal was alleged to be sub-tenant, he was also impleaded. After notice was issued by the Rent Controller, Raja Ram tenant did not put in appearance and was proceeded ex-parte.

2. The petition was contested by Kasturi Lal. He pleaded that Raja Ram was not the tenant, that he was in possession as a tenant for the last 15 years and earlier thereto his father was tenant. The father had died in 1958 and since then he is in possession of the shop as a tenant. His case was that he and his father had been paying rent to Baldev Krishan and rent had been paid by the end of Chaitra 2029 BK. The points in controversy were put in issues. The Rent Controller held that Raja Ram was the tenant and Kasturi Lal was the sub-tenant. Since Raja Ram had not tendered arrears of rent on the first date of hearing the order of ejectment was passed on the both the grounds. Issue No. 2-A was as follows :-

"Whether respondent No. 2 has paid the arrears of rent to the petitioner uptill the end of Chet 2029 BK ? OPR

The trial Court on the aforesaid issue recorded a finding that Kasturi Lal had stated that he paid the rent to the landlord uptill 12.4.1972, but this statement was not supported by oral or documentary evidence no reliance could be placed on the statement of Kasturi Lal who was an interested person and that was not sufficient to prove that he was paid the rent upto 12.4.1972. On this basis, the issue was decided against Kasturi Lal.

3. Kasturi Lal went up in appeal and the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion on the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence that Kasturi Lal was the tenant and before him his father Ronak Ram was tenant since 1951. It was also found that the electric connection which was fitted in the shop was in the name of Ronak Ram Kasturi Lal since 1965 whereas the tenancy in favour of Raja Ram was alleged to have started from 1st Baisakh 2016 BK, which would be some time in 1959 i.e. long after the tenancy in favour of Ronak Ram was started. On this basis it was concluded that Kasturi Lal was a direct tenant and earlier thereto his father was the tenant. Reference was also made to the admission of the landlord in Exhibit R-1, which was a document in his own hand writing that Ronak Ram was the tenant of the shop. It was also held that Raja Ram was never the tenant and the story of sub-letting was a made up affair. The findings of the Rent Controller to the contrary were reversed.

4. As regards issue No. 2-A, the Appellate Authority was of the view that the finding of the trial Court on this issue could not be up-held. It was further held that the case of Kasturi Lal tenant was that he has paid rent upto 12.4.1972 and since he was not being admitted as a tenant, the issue was unnecessary because the ground of non-payment of rent related to Raja Ram alone, who was considered by the landlord to be tenant and since Raja Ram not proved to be the tenant both the grounds against him ceased to exist. Consequently, by order dated 3rd January, 1978, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of ejectment. This is landlords revision.

5. After hearing Shri H.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, I am of the view that there is no scope for interference with the appreciation of evidence and the findings arrived at by the Appellate Authority in regard to the matter whether Raja Ram was the tenant or Kasturi Lal was the tenant. Writing Exhibit R-1 shows that prior to Kasturi Lal his father was tenant. Genuineness of Exhibit R-1 was being disputed by the landlord and by producing an ex