LexRAM MURTI DEVI versus PUSHPA DEVI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 7 S.C.R. 872 RAM MURTI DEVI v. PUSHPA DEVI AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 8954 of 2017) JULYll,2017 [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.) Rent Control and Eviction: Subletting - Of shop - Alleged and eviction sought - Trial C court directed eviction holding that the tenant had sub-let partial portion of shop to third person - In Revision, High Court set aside judgment of trial court holding that shop was not sub-let - On appeal, held: In a suit for eviction on the ground of sub-letting, landlord has to prove that a third party was found in exclusive D possession of the whole or part of rented property and that parting of possession was for monetary consideration - The onus to prove sub-letting is on the land-lord and if he establishes parting of possession, the onus would shift to the tenant to explain - In the present case, the landlord has proved that the tenant had parted with the possession of tenanted premises partly - On the other hand E the tenant failed to prove that the third party alleged to be in possession of the tenanted premises was his worker - Therefore. the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of sub-letting. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In a suit by the landlord for eviction of the tenant on the ground of sub-letting, the landlord has to prove by leading evidence that (a) A third party was found to be in exclusive possession of the whole or part of rented property. (b) Parting of possession thereof was for monetary consideration. The onus to prove sub-letting is on the landlord and if he has established G parting of possession in favour of a third party either wholly or partly, the onus would shift to the tenant to explain. In the event, possession of the tenant wholly or partly is proved and the particulars and the instances of the transactions are found acceptable, in particular facts and circumstances of the case, it is not impermissible for the Court to draw an inference that the H 872 RAM MURTI DEVI v. PUSHPA DEVI & ORS. 873 transaction was entered with monetary consideration. It may not A be possible always to give direct evidence of monetary consideration since such transaction of sub-letting are made between tenant and the sub-tenant behind the back of the landlord. \Vhether, in particular facts and circumstances, landlord has successfully discharged the burden of proving sub-tenancy B depends on pleading and evidence in each case? [Paras 23, 24) [886-E-H; 887-B) 2. In the present case, when the appellant pleaded that tenant had allowed one person 'E' .to stay in a portion of the · establishment and was realising a handsome amount of Rs. 50/- per day, it cannot be said that there was no pleading of parting of C possession wholly or partly as observed by the High Court. Appellant further has clearly pleaded that the said person was carrying a business of repairing watches, more so, when the defendant-tenant himself admitted that 'E' was working in the shop, lack of pleading of parting of possession as found by High D Court is misplaced. [Para 26) [887-G] 3. The Trial Court had referred to deposition of PW.I who had mentioned and proved that 'E' undertook the repair work of music systems and watches and was paying at the rate of Rs. 50/ - per day. Thus, the ingredients of pleading that tenant had parted E with the possession of shop partly, is fully proved. [Para 27] [888- A] 4. As is evident from the judgment of the trial court, High Court was also not right in stating that trial court had nowhere recorded any finding that 'E' had the exclusive control or F possession, wholly or partly, of tenanted accommodation. [Para 28] [888-B] 5. Present is not a case where trial court had considered any irrelevant factor or has ignored any relevant factor. Trial court had also held that although defendants-tenants claimed that 'E' G was their worker, but they had not brought on record any evidence to prove the same. Requisite proof of the intimation of name of 'E' had not been given, as required by statutory provisions of Uttar Pradesh Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1962. [Para 32] [890-E-F] H 874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R. A 6. Registration under the Uttar Pradesh Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1962 is a mandatory requirement and in the Form to be submitted for registration, the name of the employee of the shop has to be mentioned. The trial court has observ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.