RESHAM SINGH versus RAGHBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 668 · Decided: 23-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RESHAM SINGH 
,. 
v. 
RAGHBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER 
AUGUST 23, 1999 
B 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control & Eviction : 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act-Section I 5(5)-Sub-letting-
c Respondent No. I tenant being involved in some criminal proceedings and 
absconding for a considerable time, allowing his brother Respondent No. 2 
to look after the shop-Eviction petition by landlord on ground of sub-
letting and arrears of rent-Eviction Order passed by Rent Controller, affirmed 
by Appellate Authority-High Court, in revision, setting aside both the 
-
D 
judgments of the Rent Cont':_ol/er and Appellate Authority and holding that 
there was f.10 sub-letting-On appeal-held , High Court was justified in 
setting aside the orders of eviction as in the present case there is no evidence 
of relationship of lessee and lessor-between the two brothers or of parting 
of possession of suit premises by respondent no. I in favour of respondent 
no.2-/n view of the language of Section 15(5), High Court having the 
E powers to sa(isfy itself as to whether the question of sub-letting which is a 
question of law was properly decided by the Courts below. 
The appellant-landlord let out a shop to respondent no. 1 tenant who 
being involved in some criminal proceeding and absconding for a considerable 
period, allowed his brother, respondent No.2, to look after the shop. The 
F appellant-landlord filed a petition before the Rent Controller for eviction of 
respondents 1 and 2 on the ground that respondent no.1 tenant had sub-let 
the premises in question to respondent no.2 and the tenant was in arrears. 
of rent. The Rent Controller while deciding the issue regarding the default 
against the appellant landlord but ordered eviction of the respondent on the 
G 
ground of sub-letting which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority in 
appeal. Subsequently, the High Court allowing the revision petition by the 
tenant, set aside both the judgments of the Rent Controller and the appellate 
authority thereby holding that there was no sub-letting and the respondents 
were not defaulters. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that sub-section (5) of 
668 
.... 
-
RESHAM SINGH v. RAGHBIR SINGH 
669 
Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act does not empower A 
the High Court to set aside the finding of fact. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
. 
HELD : 1.1. In the present appeal it is not disputed that both the B 
respondents are brothers and respondent no. 1 who was the tenant was 
involved in some criminal proceedings and he was absconding for a 
considerable period. Being an absconder it does not seem possible for the 
tenant-respondent No. 1 to be physically present in the premises in question. 
It is natural to allow his brother to look after the shop and this fact would 
not amount to sub-letting. (671-G-H) 
1.2. It is settled position of law that to establish sub-letting the onus 
is on the landlord to prove through evidence that sub-tenant was in exclusive 
possession of the property in question; that between the sub-tenant and the 
tenant there was relationship of lessee and lessor and that possession of the 
premises in question was parted with exclusively by the tenant in favour of 
the sub-tenant. In the present case there is no evidence regarding parting 
of possession of the suit premises by respondent no. I in favour of his 
brother respondent no. 2 that said respondent no.2 was in exclusive possession 
of the suit premises. There is also no evidence of relationship of lessee and 
lessor between the two brothers. (671-F; 672-A-BI 
Kala and another v. Madho Parshad Vaidya, 11998) 6 SCC 573 and 
Benjamin Premananad Rawade (Dead) by Lrs. v. Anil Joseph Rawade, [19981 
9 sec 688, cited. 
c 
D 
E 
2. The qustion of sub-letting is a conclusion on question of law derived F 
from the findings on materials on record as to the transfer of exclusive 
possession and as to the said transfer of possession being for consideration. 
Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 
empowers the High Court either on application or in its own motion to call 
for an examination of the record for the purposes of satisfying itself as to G 
the legality and propriety of such orders or proceedings. In view of the 
language of sub-section (5), the High Court, while exercising powers under 
sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act. has got the powers to satisfy itse

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