A TENANT WHO SUBLETS A SHOP WITHOUT THE LANDLORD'S CONSENT IS LIABLE TO BE EVICTED.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated 27th November, 1978, whereby the landlords appeal was accepted and the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant.

2. Smt. Sudarshan Sood wife of Shri Raj Guru Sood filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, seeking eviction of the tenant (Inder Singh) from shop situated at Kailash Cinema Road, Ludhiana. The ejectment was claimed on the grounds of non-payment of rent and sub-letting. However, in the present petition only the ground of subletting subsists, on which the orders of ejectment have been passed by the Appellate Authority. It was pleaded in the petition that Inder Singh had without her consent transferred the possession of the shop in dispute to Gurdip Singh, who was carrying on his business under the name and style of Jawahar Cloth House. As Inder Singh had completely parted with the possession of the shop in favour of Gurdip Singh, it was pleased that he had sublet the shop to him. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was also served on Inder Singh on 7th September, 1973, who sent a reply to the same on 11th September, 1973. The tenant contested the application on the ground that the shop in dispute was never taken on rent by Inder Singh but it was taken on rent by Gurdip Singh from Shri Raj Guru, husband of the landlady. It was maintained that from the very inception of the tenancy, Gurdip Singh had been carrying on his cloth business in the shop and paying rent to his landlord Shri Raj Guru. It was further stated that Inder Singh had been running his hotel business since long and the shop in suit was required by Gurdip Singh for running his business of a cloth dealer; that as Inder Singh and Gurdip Singh are real brothers, they approached Raj Guru, husband of the landlady, and requested him to give the shop in suit on rent to Gurdip Singh; that the shop was taken on rent from Raj Guru, specifically on the understanding that it would be used by Gurdip Singh. It was further alleged that both the brothers are joint in mess, worship, business and other activities and they constitute a Joint Hindu Family. However, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller :-

"1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 1? OPA.

2. Whether respondents are liable to ejectment on the grounds given in para 5(b) of the petition? OPA.

3. Whether the notice is not valid ? If so its effect. OPR.

4. Relief.

The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that the landlord has failed to prove the ground of sub-letting, as the premises were taken on rent by Gurdip Singh alone from the landlord. In appeal filed by the landlord, the Appellate Authority has set aside that finding of the Rent Controller and it has been held that the petitioner succeeded in proving that she had given the shop in suit to Inder Singh, respondent No. 1, who sublet it to Gurdeep Singh, respondent No. 2". On this finding, the tenant was ordered to be ejected from the premises. Now the tenant has come up in revision against the said order of the Appellate Authority.

3 The learned counsel for the tenant vehemently argued that the Appellate Authority has not considered the material evidence on the record and has wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the shop was given to Inder Singh tenant and he had sublet the same to Gurdip Singh. The learned counsel further contended that the evidence was rightly considered by the Rent Controller and the findings arrived at by him should not have been set aside by the Appellate Authority. It was also contended that in any case even if it may be held that the shop was given on rent to Inder Singh, Gurdip Singh being his real brother could not be held to sub-tenant under the facts and circumstances of the p