Subletting of premises without the written consent of the landlord is illegal and void under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by Smt. Rajbir Kaur and another, hereinafter described as "the petitioner", directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, dated 5.10.1995. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and dismissed the petition for eviction that had been preferred by the petitioners.

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioners are admitted landlords. They have filed a petition for eviction contending that respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken on rent the first floor of the property in question and the rent was Rs. 1,000/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were alleged to have sub-let the premises to respondents No. 3 to 7 for valuable consideration after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to Union Territory of Chandigarh (for short "the Act") without the written consent of the petitioners. Respondents No. 3 to 7 were stated to be in exclusive possession of 1/2 of the first floor towards back portion wherein they are running independent business and paying rent to respondent No. 1 and 2. When the petitioners came to know of this fact, they requested respondent No. 1 and 2 to vacate the property for having violated the terms and conditions of the tenancy. It was not done. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were stated to be Architects and Designer while the demised property was alleged to have been sub-let to other respondents for doing tailoring business.

3. The petition for eviction had been contested. It was pointed that tenancy in favour of respondent No. 1 and 2 has been created in June, 1971. Earlier, respondents No. 1 and 2 were the tenants on the second floor (half portion) at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. The rent of the first floor was initially settled at Rs. 650/per month. It was increased from time to time. Respondents No. 1 and 2 shifted on the first floor. They had done so with the condition that they would sub-let any portion to the tenants of their own choice because they were not in need of the entire first floor. The landlords agreed and, therefore, the rear portion was sublet to Dr. G.S. Sandhu in the month of June, 1971 and subsequently from 25.7.1971 the rear portion was sublet to M/s Raison Tailors which is a firm constituted by respondents No. 3 to 6. Ever since then, respondent No. 7 is in continuous possession of the rear portion. Devinder Singh was stated to be the attorney of the petitioners and was fully aware of this fact that M/s Raison Tailors are sub-tenants in the said portion. This fact was recorded in black and white in the month of December, 1974. Initially, M/s Raison Tailors used to book the business from the rear portion of the first floor and they had their regular workshop in Sector 22, Chandigarh. Subsequently, they had shifted a part of their workshop in the suit premises. Only a small part of it remained with South India Insurance Co. Plea was raised that though respondent No. 7 is paying rent to respondent No. 1 and 2, but it was with the consent of the landlords. Had the sub-tenancy against the consent of the petitioners, they would not have allowed respondents No. 3 to 7 to continue in the demised premises for such a long time.

4. Rejoinder was filed. The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and considered the evidence on the record. The learned Rent Controller held that the best evidence in possession of the respondent has not been produced, namely, their account books. Similarly, it was pointed that Joginder Singh is a practicing Architect. Reference was made to his admission made during the course of his testimony and it was held that sub-tenancy was created in the year 1973 without the consent of the petitioners. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed.

5. Appeals were preferred with the learned Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authorit