DEV KUMAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSMT. SWARAN LATA AND ORS.

               DEV KUMAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.                                      A
                             v.
                 SMT. SWARAN LATA AND ORS.

                           NOVEMBER 10, 1995

             [S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                               B

      East Punjab Urban Rent Rest1iction Act, 1949 :

      Section 15(5)-Revision-Power of High Cowt-Scope of-Power held
wider than the power under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code-But it             C
cannot be equated with Appellate Jwisdiction-Examination of legality and
prop1iety of conclusion anived by Appellate Autho1ity-Held : High Cowt
cannot inte1fere with unless there is pe1versity in appreciation of evidence by
Appellate Auth01ity.

      Section 13(2)(ii)(a)-Sub-letting-Eviction f01~Appointment of Com-           D
missione1~ommissio11er acting at the behest of landlady- Commissioner's
evidence held tainted-No other evidence to support sub-letting-Held
landlady failed to establish her case of sub-letting-Conclusion of High Co wt
based on Commissioner's rep01t held not justified.

      The respondent-landlady filed an eviction suit under section 13(2)(i)       E
and (ii)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the
ground, inter alia that the appellant-tenant had sublet the premises to
respondents 2 to 4 who were carrying on business in the name and style
of M/s. Ram Saran Rattan Chand. The tenant contested the case on the
ground that alongwith his own business he was carrying on the business            F
as commission agent of respondents 2 to 4. The Rent Controller appointed
a Local Commissioner whose report indicated that on a particular day
when he went to the disputed premises and purchased a piece of cloth for
which a bill was given in the name of M/s. Ram Saran Rattan Chand, Moti
Bazar. However, the disputed property is not in Moti Bazar but in Pratap          G
Bazar. On second occasion when the Commissioner went to the shop a bill
book was produced in the name of M/s. Ram Saran Bhola Nath having the
rubber stamp with the words "Sole Selling Agent Dev Kumar". In his
evidence also the Commissioner stated that he took a sum of Rs. 77 from
Gain Chand, Power of Attorney of the landlady, for purchase of the piece
of cloth from the disputed premises and after purchasing the same he              H
                                    89
    90                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [199S] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   handed it over to Gian Chand. Accepting the report and evidence of the
    Local Commissioner, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the
    tenant had sublet the premises to respondents 2 to 4 who were carrying on
    the business in the premises in question and consequently passed an
    eviction order. The first appellate Court set aside the eviction order
    holding that (i) the Commissioner's report indicated that the tenant was
B   carrying on his business in the disputed premises and had not parted with
    the possession of the same; (ii) no evidence was produced by land-lady to
    show that respondents 2 to 4 were in exclusive possession of the disputed
    premises for valuable consideration. In revision, filed by the land-lady
    under section 15(5) of the Act, the High Court reversed the findings of the
c   Appellate Authority and relying upon the evidence of the Commissioner
    held that respondents 2 to 4 were in exclusive possession of the demised
    premises and that the tenant had parted with possession in their favour.

          In tenant's appeal to this Court on the question whether the High
D   Court was justified in re-appreciating the evidence and interfering with the
    conclusion of the Appellate Authority in exercise of its revision jurisdiction
    and whether the landlady has established her case of sub-letting by the
    tenant:

         Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the
E   High Court, this Court

          HELD : 1. The respondent-landlady has utterly failed to establish the
    plea of subletting and the High Court erred in law in formulating its own
    conclusion and reversing the finding of the Appellate Authority. [98-A·B]
F
          2. The jurisdiction of the high Court under sub-section (5) of section
    15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 entitles the Court
    to examine the legality and propriety of a conclusion of the Appellate
    Authority and is much wider than the revisional jurisdiction under section
    115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But it has to be exercised subject to
G   the well known limitations inherent in all revisional jurisdictions and
    cannot be equated with an Appellate Jurisdiction. This being the position,
    unless there is a perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the
    Appellate Authority or unless the Appellate Authority has arrived at a
    conclusion which on the materials, no reasonable man can come, the High
H   Court will not interfere with the same. [95-E-F]
                    DEV KUMAR v. SW.ARAN LATA                             91

      Smt. Rajbir Kaur & Anr. v. M/s. S. Chokosiri & Co., [1982) 2 SCR          A
Suppl. 310; Nanak Chand v. lnderjit and Ors., (1969) AJI India Rent Control
Journal p.881 and Ram Das v. lshwar Chander & Ors., [1988) 1 SCR Suppl.
239, referred to.

       3. On the mere purchase of a piece of cloth under a bill "M/s. Ram
Saran Rattan Chand" as indicated in the Commissioner's report, it is            B
difficult for any court to come to the conclusion that disputed premises
was in exclusive possession of the alleged sub-tenant, namely, respondent
Nos. 2 to 4. The statement of the Local Commissioner unequivocally
indicates that he has acted at the behest of the landlady and the said
evidence must be held to be tainted one which in fact has substantially         C
formed the basis of conclusion of subletting by the High Court. In this view
of the matter the ultimate finding of the High Court that the report as well
as the statement of the local Commissioner is enough to hold that the Orm
M/s. Ram Saran Rattan Chand is carrying on the business in the demised
premises and that the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are in exclusive possession       D
of the demised premises and the tenant has parted with the possession in
their favour is wholly unsustainable. At the most, the conclusion can be
that while the tenant was continuing his own business as well as a business
of Commission Agent of M/s. Ram Saran Bhola Nath, the respondent Nos.
2 to 4 have also been permitted to continue their business in the name Ram
Saran Rattan Chand. But that does not establish either the exclusive            E
possession of respondents 2 to 4 or that the tenant has parted with his
possession. The exclusive possession of the premises being the first criteria
for establishing subletting and the same not being established the con-
clusion of the High Court about subletting is vitiated. [97-C-H]
                                                                                F
     Jagdish Prasad v.Angoori Devi, [1984] 3 SCR 216 and M/s. Sltalimar
Tar Products Ud. v. H.C. Shanna & Ors., [1988] 1 SCR 1023, referred to.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4204 of
1992.
                                                                                G
     From the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.92 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in C.R. No. 3106 of 1983.

    Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, Ajay Kumar Agarwal, M. R. Krishnamoorti,
Pramod Sharma for Mitter & Mittar Co. for the Appellant.                        H
     92                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A·        Krishan Mahajan, R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Ruby
     Ahuja arid Ms. Manik Karanjawala for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                   ..
B         PATTANAIK, J. This appeal is by the tenant, challenging the
   revisional order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana whereunder an
   order of eviction has been passed on the finding that the premises in
   question has been sub-let and as such the tenant has incurred the liability
   of eviction under Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent
   Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). The landlady
c  Smt. Swaran Lata respondent No. 1, in the present appeal filed an applica-
   tion for ejectment of her tenant Dev Kumar, the deceased husband of the
   present appellant alleging therein that said Dev Kumar has failed to pay
   the arrears of rent and has sub-let the premises in favour of respondent
   nos. 2 to 4 and, therefore, has incurred the liability of being evicted under
D_ Section 13(2)(i) & (ii)(a) of the Act. The tenant before the Rent Control-
   ler appeared and controverted all the allegations made by the landlady.
   The allegations of subletting by him in favour of respondents nos. 2 to 4
   was also specifically denied. The Rent Controller on appreciating the
    evidence led before him came to the conclusion that there exists relation-
    ship of landlord and tenant between the respondent no. 1 and appellant
E and the tenant had tendered the arrears of rent which was accepted by the
   landlady. On the question of subletting the Controller came to the con-
    clusion that the tenant Dev Kumar has sub-let the premises to respondents
   2 to 4 who were carrying on the business in the premises in question. The
   plea of the tenant that in fact he was carrying on the business as Commis-
F  sion  agent of respondents 2 to 4 was not accepted. On this conclusion the
   Controller held that the tenant has incurred the liability of being evicted
   under Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act and directed that the possession of
   premises be given to the landlady within 2 months. It may be stated that
   the Controller had appointed a local Commissioner calling upon him to
   find out whether the premises has been sub-let to M/s. Ram Saran Rattan
G Chand and the said Commissioner had submitted a report which was
   accepted as Exhibit AW 5/4 and the Commissioner was also examined
   before the Controller as AW 5. The ~onclusion of the Rent Controller on
   the question of sub-letting was essentially based upon the said
   Commissioner's report and the evidence of the Commissioner. The
H aforesaid report has also been annexed as Annexure 'D' to the Special
_....               DEV KUMAR v. SWARAN LATA [PATTANAIK, J.]                    93

        Leave Petition.                                                               A
               Against the order of eviction the tenant preferred an appeal. The
        Additional District Judge, Amritsar, who was the Appellate Authority
        re-considered the entire evidence on record and reversed the finding of
        the Controller on the question of sub-letting. The Appellate Authority
        came to hold that except the solitary statement of AW 11 no other evidence B
        was produced by the landlady to show that respondents 2 to 4 are in
        exclusive possession of the disputed premises and that such possession is
        for valuable consideration. He also held that even AW 11 has not stated
        that the possession of respondents 2 to 4 is for valuable consideration. The
        evidence of local Commissioner was also fully discussed and the Appellate C
        Authority held that the said evidence indicates that the tenant Dev Kumar
        still carries on his business in the disputed premises and has not parted
        with the possession of the same in favour of respondents 2 to 4. The order
        of eviction passed by the Controller thus having been set aside and the
        appeal having been allowed, the landlady invoked the jurisdiction of the
        High Court in revision under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act. The D
        High Court by the impugned judgment dated 3rd of April, 1992, has
        reversed the findings of the Appellate Authority and relying upon the
        evidence of the Commissioner has held that the respondents 2 to 4 are in
        exclusive possession of the demised premises and tenant has parted with
        the possession in their favour. Therefore, has sublet the premises in their E
        favour and the revision being allowed with the direction that the tenant
        should handover the vacant possession of the demised premises to the
        landlady, the present appeal has been preferred by the tenant.

              Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel appearing for the ap-
        pellant essentially raised two contentions in assailing the impugned judg-    F
        ment of the High Court :               ·

              (1) However, wide the power of revision under sub-section (5) of
        Section 15 of the Act may be, it cannot be equated with the appellate power
        and as such the High Court was not justified in re-appreciating the           G
        evidence on record and come to its own conclusion while exercising its
        revisional jurisdiction under the Act;

              (2) The ultimate conclusion of the High Court about subletting is
        also not sustainable in law, more so, when the same is based upon the
        tainted evidence of the local Commissioner.                                   H
    94                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A          Mr. Krishna Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
    no. 1, on the other hand, contended that the revisional power under
    sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act is wide enough to examine the
    legality and propriety of the order passed by the Appellate Authority and
    in exercise of such power the High Court was justified in re-appreciating
    the evidence on record. The learned counsel also urged that the conclusion
B   of subletting rendered by the High Court is fully justified on materials on
    record and as such the same need not be interfered with by this Court.

           In view of the rival submissions at the B3.r, the first question that
    arises for consideration is to what extent the High Court was justified in
C   reappreciating the evidence and interfering with the conclusion of the
    Appellate Authority on the question of sub-letting. It will be appropriate
    at this stage to extract sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act :

            "The High Court may, at any time, on the application of any
            aggrieved party or in its own motion, call for and examine the
D           records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under
            this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or
            propriety of such order or proceeding and may pass such order in
            relation thereto as it may deem fit".

          In the case of Smt. Rajbir Kaur & Anr. v. M/s. S. Chokosiri & Co.,
E [1982] 2 SCR Suppl. 310 this Court examined the revisional power of the
    High Court under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act and held where
    the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are supportable of the
    evidence on record, the revisional Court must be reluctant to embark upon
    an independent re-assessment of the evidence and supplant the conclusion
F   of. its own so long as the evidence on record admitted and supported the
    one reached by the Courts below.

          In the case of Nanak Chand v. Inderjit & Ors., (1969) All India Rent
    Control Journal p. 881 this Court construed sub-section (5) of Section 15      >
    of the East Punjab Urban Rent.Restriction Act, 1949 and held that the
G   revisional power conferred on the High Court under Section 15(5) of the
    Act is wider than that conferred by Section 115 of the Civil Procedure
    Code and under Section 15(5) of the Act the High Court has jurisdiction
    to examine the legality or propriety of the order under revision and that
    would clearly justify the examination of the finding by the Authority about
H   the requirements of the landlord under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act.
            DEV KUMAR v. SWARAN LATA [PATTANAIK, J.]                       95

      In the case of Ram Das v. Ishwar Chander & Ors., [1988) 1 SCR A
Suppl. 239 this Court again examined the aforesaid provision of sub-section
(5) of Section 15 of the Act and held that subject to the well known
limitation inherent in all revisional jurisdictions, the matter essentially turns
on the language of the statute investing the jurisdiction. Examining the
language of sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Court further held :
                                                                                 B
        "But here, Section 15(5) enables the High Court to satisfy itself as
        to the "legality and propriety" of the order under revision which is,
        quite obviously, a much wider jurisdiction. That jurisdiction
        enables the court of revision, in appropriate cases, to examine the
        correctness of the findings of facts also, though the revisional Court   C
        is not "a second Court of first appeal'".

In our considered opinion having regard to the afore-mentioned decisions
of this Court laying down the parameters of the High Court's jurisdiction
under Section 15(5) of the Act it is neither possible to accept the narrow D
construction put by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant nor
the wide construction put by the learned counsel appearing for the respon-
dents. The jurisdiction of the High Court under sub-section (5) of Section
15 of the Act, therefore, would entitle the Court to examine the legality
and propriety of a conclusion of the Appellate Authority and is thus much
wider than the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil E
Procedure. But it has to be exercised subject to the well known limitations
inherent in all revisional jurisdictions and cannot be equated with an
Appellate jurisdiction. This being the position, unless there is a perversity
in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the Appellate Authority or
unless the Appellate Authority has arrived at a conclusion which on the F
materials, no reasonable man can come, the High Court will not interfere
with the same.

      Coming to the second question the expression "Sub-letting" has not
been defined in the Act. The conclusion on the question of subletting is a
conclusion on a question of law derived from the findings on the materials G
on record as to the transfer of exclusive possession and as to the said
transfer of possession being for consideration. As to what is the true
meaning of expression "Sub-letting", this Court considered the same in the
case of Jagdish Prasad v. Ango01i Devi, (1984) 3 SCR 216 in an eviction
proceeding under UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and H
      96                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

 A Eviction) Act. The Court held that merely from the presence of the person
      other than the tenant in the shop, subletting cannot be ·presumed and as
      long as control over the premises is kept by the tenant and the business
      run in the premises is of the tenant, sub-letting flowing from the prese11ce
      of the person other than the tenant in the shop cannot be assumed. It was
      further held that in an application for eviction of a tenant from a shop
 B    which is based on the allegations that the premises has been sublet, the
      allegation has to be proved. The question of subletting was considered by
      this Court in the case of M/s. Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C. Shanna
      & Ors., [1988) 1 SCR 1023 and it was held that in order to construe
      subletting there must be parting of legal possession of the lessee and
 c    parting of legal possession means "possession with the right to include and
      also right to exclude others".

            In the case of Smt. Rajbir Kaur & Anr. v. Mis. S. Chokosiri & Co.,
      (supra) this Court considered the question of subletting and held that the
      burden of making a case of subletting is on the landlady. It was also held
 D    that the transaction of subletting in the guise of licences are in their very
      nature clandestine arrangements between the tenant and the sub-tenant
      and it would be difficult to get direct evidence on the same. If exclusive
      possession of the alleged sub-tenant is established then it may not be
      impermissible for the Court to draw an inference that the transaction was
 E    entered into with mandatory consideration in mind.

          Bearing in mind the aforesaid legal position we would now examine
    the question whether the landlady, respondent no. 1 in the present appeal,
    has established her case of subletting by the tenant and further whether
. F the conclusion of the High Court thereon is at all sustainable in law? The
    case of respondent no. 1 in this context is that respondents 2 to 4 have been
    given the disputed premises where they are transacting their business in
    their name and style Ram Saran Rattan Chand. The case of the tenant Dev
    Kumar, on the other hand, is that alongwith his own business, he was also
    transacting business as commis~.ion agent of M/s. Ram Saran Bhola Nath.
  G The only evidence led by the landlady in the case is the oral testimony of
    the power of attorney holder Gian Chand. The High Court, however, has
    relied upon the evidence of the local Commissioner and his report. The
    report of the Commissioner merely indicates that on a particular day the
    Commissioner went to the disputed premises and purchased a piece of
  H cloth and paid the money, the bill for which was given by the seller in the
            DEV KUMAR v. SWARAN LATA[PATfANAIK,J.)                        97

name of M/s. Ram Saran Rattan Chand, Moti Bazar. The disputed                   A
premises, however, is not on Moti Bazar but on Pratap Bazar. The report
of the Commissioner also indicates that when the Commissioner went for
the second time, to the shop and asked for the bill-book, a bill-book was
produced in the name of M/s. Ram Saran Bhola Nath having the rubber
stamp having the words "Sole Selling Agent Dev Kumar". Production of            B
such a bill- book on being asked by the Commissioner lends support to the
case of the tenant that he was transacting business as a Commission Agent
of M/s. Ram Saran Bhola Nath, of which firm respondent no. 3 is a partner.
That apart or, the mere purchase of a piece of cloth under a bill M/s. Ram
Saran Rattan Chand as indicated in the Commissioner's report, it is
difficult for any Court to come to the conclusion that disputed premises        c
was in exclusive possession of the alleged o.ub-tenant, namely, respondents
nos. 2 to 4. In this context it would be appropriate to notice the conduct
of the local Commissioner as reflected from his evidence. He has stated
that he took a sum of Rs. 77 from Gian Chand, Power of Attorney of the
landlady, for purchase of the piece of cloth from the disputed premises and     D
<Jfter purchasing the same he also handed over that piece of cloth to Gian
Chand. The statement of the local Commissioner, who was examined as
AW5, and which has been annexed as Annexure 'E' to the Special Leave
Petition unequivocally indicates that he has acted at the behest of the
landlady and the said evidence must be held to be a tainted one which in
                                                                                E
fact has substantially formed the basis of conclusion of subletting by the
High Court. In this view of the matter the ultimate finding of the High
Court that the report as well as the statement of the local Commissioner
is enough to hold that the Firm M/s. Ram Saran Rattan Chand is carrying
on the business in the demised premises and that the respondents nos. 2
to 4 are in exclusive possession of the demised premises and the tenant has     F
parted the possession in their favour is wholly unsustainable and we
accordingly set aside the said conclusion. At the most, the conclusion can
be that while the tenant was continuing his own business as well as a
business of Commission Agent of M/s. Ram Saran Bhola Nath, the respon-
dents nos. 2 to 4 have also been permitted to continue their business in the    G
name Ram Saran Rattan Chand. But that does not establish either the
exclusive possession of respondents ;.. to 4 or that the tenant has parted
with his possession. The exclusive possession of the premises being the first
criteria for establishing subletting and the same not being established, the
conclusion of the High Court about subletting is vitiated.
                                                                                H
    98                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A          In our considered opinion the landlady - respondent No. 1, has
    utterly failed to establish the plea of subletting and the High Court erred
    in law in formulating its own conclusion and reversing the finding of the
    Appellate Authority. In the aforesaid premises the appeal is allowed. The
    impugned order of the High Court in revision is set aside and the order of
    the Appellate Authority is affirmed. The application for eviction stands
B   dismissed.

          There will be no order as to costs.

    T.N.A.                                                    Appeal allowed.