GURUBACHAN SINGH AND ANR. versus RAM NIWAS

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 966 · Decided: 24-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GURUBACHAN SINGH AND ANR. 
V. 
RAM NIWAS 
MAY 24, 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
c 
Rent and eviction: 
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950--
s. l 3(/)(e)-Sub-letting-Tenant parting with possession of tenanted 
premises-Evidence as to receipt of rent from alleged sub-tenant-Held: 
Tenant liable to eviction on the ground of sub-letting. 
Landlord filed eviction suit against tenant on the ground that 
tenant had, without prior permission sublet the suit shop to RTDC at 
0 
a rent of Rs. 2100 p.m. Tenant took defence that the shop was given 
to RTDC only for a period of 20 days as RTDC's shop was under 
renovation. 
Trial Court decreed the suit. First Appellate Court affirmed the 
finding of Trial Court on the ground of sub-letting. On appeal, High 
E 
Court held that there are concurrent findings that the possession of the 
suit shop was with RTDC to carry on business and during the period 
tenant had no control whatsoever over the suit shop; that there is no 
evidence to show that the tenants were continuing in possession of the 
suit shop during that period and that the use of the said shop for a 
F 
period of four months by RTDC on payment of Rs.2100/- as rent, 
amounts to subletting within the meaning of clause (e) of sub-section (1) 
of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) 
Act, 1950. Aggrieved tenant filed the present appeal. 
G 
H 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: t. The sub-letting has been clearly establjshed by the 
evidence of the Senior Office Assistant in RTDC. It is his evidence that 
RTDC had taken the ciisputed shop on rent from 1 t.4.1991 on temporary 
basis because in the shop in front of KEM, the repair work was going 
on. He further stated that RTDC remained in possession for four months 
966 
GURUBACHAN SINGH v. RAM NIW AS [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
967 
on payment of rent of Rs.2100/- p.m. of the disputed shop from 11.4.1991 
A 
to 15.8.1991. In the cross-examination nothing has been elicited to 
discredit his testimony and to disprove their case with regard to subletting 
and the receipt of the rent. There is thus clear evidence as to the subletting 
and also the receipt of the rent by the tenant from the sub-lessee. For the 
foregoing reasons, there is no warrant to interfere with the concurrent 
findings of the three courts.1971-A-C, 974-A-B) 
Delhi stationers and Printers v. Rajendra Kumar, (1990) 2 SCC 331; 
Dev Kumar v. Swaran Lata, [1996] l SCC 25 - held inapplicable. 
B 
Gappulal v. Shriji Dwarkadheeshji, AIR (1969) SC 1291; Jagdish 
C 
Prasad v. Angoori Devi, 11984) 2 SCC 590; Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. 
v. H.C. Sharma, [1988) l SCC 70; Dipak Banerjee v. Lilabati Chakraborty, 
(1987) 4 sec 161 - referred to. 
3. The tenants are in occupation of the shop in question from the 
year 1970. The tenants have also deposited the rent in the Court as 
D 
ordered by this Court. Considering the long occupation of the premises 
in question, nine months' time is granted to the tenants to vacate the 
premises. The tenants shall now pay a sum of Rs.1500/- not by way of 
rent but by way of compensation for use and occupation, without any 
default. 1974-D, E] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 3536 of 
2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.2003 of the High Court of 
Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. C.S.A. No. 234/1998. 
F 
Sushi! Kumar Jain and Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advs., for the Appellants. 
K.S. Bhatti, Pawan and Rupesh Ranjan, Advs., for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : The unsuccessful tenants are the 
Appellants before us in this appeal. The Respondent is the landlord. The 
premises in question is situated at Station Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan on a 
G 
monthly rent of Rs. 300. 
H 
968 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the tenants on the 
B 
grounds of default in payment of rent and for change of user and subletting. 
It was alleged that the tenants committed default in payment of rent for more 
than six months. It has further been averred that the tenants have subtet the 
premises to Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (in short "RIDC") 
for running a Beer shop at a rent of Rs. 2100/- per month without taking 
prior permission of the landlord. 
The Appellants filed written statement denying the allegations made in 
the plaint. The Appellants contended that they had not commi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.