A partnership does not negate a tenant's liability for sub-letting if the landlord proves exclusive possession by a third party without consent.

JUDGMENT

Gurbir Singh, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 20.10.2023, passed by learned Appellate Authority, SAS Nagar (Mohali), thereby allowing appeal filed by Kuldeep Singh-Respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as - the landlord) against petitioner (hereinafter referred to as - the tenant) and proforma Respondents no.2 and 3 and the judgment dated 23.03.2013, passed by learned Rent Controller, Kharar has been set aside and order of ejectment has been passed on the ground of subletting.

2. The brief facts of the case, as culled out from the paper-book, are that the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short - the Act) for ejectment from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent, submitting therein that the petitioner-tenant has sub-let the premises to Respondents no.2 and 3; the petitioner-tenant has changed the user of premises and the petitioner-tenant has materially impaired the value of the demised premises. The learned Trial Court decided all the issues against the landlord and petition was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2013. The landlord filed appeal. Vide judgment dated 20.10.2023, appeal was allowed and order of ejectment was passed on the ground that the landlord has successfully proved his entitlement for eviction of the demised premises on the ground of sub-letting. The judgment passed by learned Rent Controller, so far as ground of sub-letting was concerned, was held to be not legally sustainable and was liable to be set aside and accordingly, appeal was allowed.

3. The appeal is filed by the tenant against the finding recorded by Appellate Court on the ground of sub-letting. So, only this issue is being discussed here.

4. It is the case of the landlord that petitioner-tenant has sub-let the demised premises to Respondents no.2 and 3 without permission of the landlord. The case of petitioner-tenant and Respondent no.3 is that in the year 2001, the petitioner-tenant formed a partnership firm with Respondent no.3 under the name and style of M/s Rana Brothers and executed a partnership deed. Since the incorporation of partnership deed, petitioner-tenant and Respondent no.3 are running the business jointly in the demised premises. However, Respondent no.2 has nothing to do with the said business and he has been wrongly joined by the landlord. Respondent no.3, being partner of M/s Rana Brothers, had been regularly paying the rent of the demised premises up to August 2007 but no receipt was issued by the landlord on account of cordial relations between the parties. Since petitioner-tenant and Respondent no.3 were partners, so question of sub-letting of the premises by petitioner-tenant in favour of Respondent no.3 does not arise at all.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has argued that inducting a partner or partners in the business or profession by a tenant by itself does not amount to sub-letting. If a tenant is actively associated with partnership business and retains the control of tenancy premises with him, may be along with other partners, then tenant cannot considered to have parted with possession of the demised premises. The learned Appellate Court has erred in interpreting the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Celina Coelho Pereira and Ors. v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Khokar and Ors. reported as 2009(2) RCR (Rent) 456. It is further argued that Respondent no.3 admitted in his cross-examination that office work is being looked after by him whereas the field work was done by the petitioner-tenant. The learned Appellate Court has wrongly held that possession of Respondent no.3 stood established from the said admission. Rather, said admission fortified the stand of the petitioner-tenant and Respondent no.3 that they are partners and Respondent no.3 is not in exclusive possession and control of the tenanted premises. Reliance is placed on case Parvinder Singh v. Renu Gautam