JOGINDER SINGH SODHI versus AMAR KAUR

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 303 · Decided: 08-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
JOGINDER SINGH SODHI 
A 
v. 
AMAR KAUR 
OCTOBER 8, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
East Punjab Urban Rent Control Act; Section 13-Eviction Petition on 
ground of sub-letting-Decreed by Rent Controller.,-Affirmed by Appellate C 
Authority-Revision petition dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: 
Tenant had parted with possession in favour of his son staying separately 
without the written consent of the landlord-Son found to be in exclusive 
possession of the suit premises-Proof of monetary consideration not a sine 
qua non to establish sub-letting-Relationship between the tenant and the D 
sub-tenant immaterial-Hence, it was righ~ly contended that the premises was 
sub-let by the tenant. 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of waiver-Applicability of 
E 
Respondent-landlady let out the shop premises in question to father 
of the appellant in terms of a lease-deed executed by him. Later, appellant 
took possession of the shop. The landlady filed an eviction petition against 
both the tenant and his son mainly on ground of sub-letting. Rent 
Controller decreed the suit holding that the premises in question was let F 
out to father of the appellant, who parted with possession thereof in favour 
of the appellant and since appellant was found to be in exclusive possession 
of the property, sub-letting by the tenant-father in favour of the appellant 
was established. Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction. High 
Court dismissed the Revision petition. Hence, the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that his father had taken the 
premises on lease for him, and it was not a case of sub-letting; and that 
. his name was already on record, and thus the estate of the deceased was 
represented. 
303 
G 
H 
304 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent-landlady submitted that in terms of an Undertaking 
given by the deceased-tenant in the lease-deed, he could not part with 
possession of the premises, however his son-appellant was found in 
exclusive possession of the premises; and that since after the death of the 
original tenant his legal heirs were not brought on record, order of eviction 
B passed against him became final. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, a finding of fact has been recorded 
by the Rent Controller, confirmed by the Appellate Authority as also by 
the High Court that the property was let out to the deceased tenant, who 
C had given an Undertaking that he would neither part with possession of 
the property nor would permit anyone else to occupy it. However, he had 
-
parted with possession in favour of his son who was found to be in exclusive 
_.., 
possession though he was staying separately. Besides, proof of monetary 
consideration by the sub-tenant to the tenant is not a sine qua non to 
D establish sub-letting. [309-D, E; 311-E) 
Associated Hotels of India ltd. v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, [1968) 2 
SCR 548 AIR (1968) SC 933; Sharma Prashant Raje v. Ganpatrao and Ors., 
[20001 7 SCC 522; Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 
[19981 3 SCC 1 and Smt. Rajbir Kaur and Anr. v. Mis. S. Chokesiri & Co., 
E [19891 1 sec 19, relied on. 
1.2. Appellant was found to be in exclusive possession of the property. 
He was staying separately and not with his father, the tenant. The 
explanation given by the tenant as to how the appellant came to occupy 
F the shop was that the lease was obtained by him for his son, which was 
not believed by the authorities. For deciding the question whether the 
tenant had created sub-tenancy, the relationship between the tenant and 
sub-tenant is not material. Hence the Authorities rightly concluded that 
the tenant had sub-let the suit property to the appellant. [311-G I 
G 
1.3. There is no privity of contract between the landlady and the 
appellant. He was, therefore, a 'stranger' to the landlady. She let the 
property to father of the appellant, who was bound to occupy the property 
as per the rent note executed by him wherein even an undertaking was 
given by him that he would not part with possession or allow any other 
person to occupy the property. In spite of the rent note and undertaking, 
H if without the written consent of the landlady, he had inducted the 
-
JOGINDER SINGH SODHI v. AMAR KAUR [THAKKER, J.] 
305 
appellant as his tenant or had parted with possession in favour of the A 
appellant, who was staying separately and yet found to be i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.