IMPORTANT POINT
Rent Law--Eviction--Subletting--Nearness of relationship between parties by themselves will not give rise to a presumption that such relationship could not establish sub-tenancy.

K.Kannan, J.

1. The Rent Controller dismissed an application for ejectment filed on the alleged grounds of subletting and cessation of the tenant to occupy the building. In appeal by the landlord, the decision of the Rent Controller as regards cessation to occupy the building was confirmed but ordered ejectment on the ground of subletting. The aggrieved tenant is the revision petitioner before this Court.

2. Before the Rent Controller, the tenant resisted the plea of the landlord that there had been a subletting by pointing out that the so-called sub-tenant was his own blood brother and he was jointly associated in the business of tenant. In proof of his contentions, the tenant had filed copies of returns submitted before the sales tax authorities and account books where the second respondent had been shown as a partner with the first respondent. The Rent Controller accepted the documents as establishing the defence and also reasoned that the landlord had not even filed any purchase bills that should have been available if the second respondent had been carrying on the business independently. The Appellate Authority reversed the decision, finding fault with the reliance on the documents of sales tax returns and account books and further found the evidence of the first respondent namely the tenant as most untrustworthy. The Appellate Authority also found that the second respondent had taken independent electricity service connection that proved his exclusive possession. The case of subletting according to the Appellate Authority had been comprehensively proved.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant vehemently argued that the Appellate Authority had committed an error by reversing the decision of the Rent Controller on flimsy grounds. To him, the fact that electricity connection had been taken only in the name of the second respondent could not prove sub-tenancy and the electricity connection itself could not have been obtained during the relevant time without the permission of the landlord. The returns before the sales tax returns had given the details of the business as being run in partnership and the account books, which were produced in Court, were for all the periods from 1981 to 1990. The reliance on all the documents by the Rent Controller was appropriate and the reversal of the decision made by the Appellate Authority, according to the counsel for the revision petitioner did not accord with evidence in law.

4. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, the case relating to sub-tenancy has been decided on factual consideration of the following facts :-

(i) It is not merely a case of close relationship between parties amongst the respondents but a case where the second respondent had been admitted to be in possession of the shop but it was explained by the first respondent that they were running a joint business. This according to the counsel for the landlord placed a heavy burden on the tenant to prove that there was no sub- tenancy.

(ii) The tenant had admitted in his evidence that there was a document of partnership between respondent No.1 and 2 and the failure to produce the document give rise to an adverse inference against the plea of a joint business between respondent No. 1 and 2.

(iii) The sales tax return produced by the first respondent was merely a photocopy containing signatures of respondent No.1 and 2 and they were not duly authenticated certified copies. Objection had been taken even at the time of trial for reception of the document and there was no proof of loss of the original or justification for its non-production.

(iv) Even a copy of the so-called certificate of registration produced by the tenant and exhibited as RW5/2 merely made reference to the name of the business concerned as M/s Savera Boot House and there had been no reference to the partnership itself.

(v) The tenant was having a business in vending fruits in a place 45 kms away