Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in non‑suiting the landlord; the partnership was a sham to conceal sub‑letting, and the eviction orders stand.

Summary

The landlord filed an eviction petition under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 alleging that the tenant had sub-let the premises to a partnership called Mandovi Tours and Travels. The tenant denied sub‑letting, claiming the partnership was genuine and that he retained exclusive possession. The Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal found the partnership to be a sham designed to conceal sub‑letting and ordered eviction. The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, set aside those orders and non‑suited the landlord. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred, that the partnership was a device to evade the Act, that the landlord’s pleadings were sufficient, and that the burden of proving sub‑letting lies on the landlord until the tenant disproves it. Consequently, the eviction orders were upheld and the High Court’s judgment was set aside.

Issues considered

The High Court’s exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside the eviction orders and non‑suit the landlord.
Whether the formation of a partnership by the tenant amounts to sub‑letting under the 1968 Act.
Who bears the burden of proof in establishing sub‑letting in rent‑control proceedings.
Whether the partnership was a genuine business entity or a veil to conceal sub‑letting.
Whether the pleadings of the landlord needed to specifically identify the sub‑lessee.

Legislation cited

Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968s. 22(2)(b)(i)

Subjects

evictionsub‑lettingpartnership veilrent controlArticle 227burden of proofGoa Daman Diu Buildings Actleasetenancy

Judgment

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 558

A MS. CELINA COELHO PEREIRA & ORS.
v.
ULHAS MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR & ORS.
\-
(Civil Appeal No. 7258 OF 2009)
t
OCTOBER 30, 2009
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R. M. LODHA, JJ.]

~
Goa, Daman and Diu Building (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act, 1968 - s.22(2)(b)(i) - Eviction petition ..,_,,.. l )

c - On the ground of sub-letting - Tenant taking plea of
partnership with the sub-tenant - Order for eviction by Rent
controller and Tribunal - High Court in petition under Article
227 of the Constitution, setting aside finding of courts below
- On appeal, held: High Court was not justified in non-suiting
D the landlord in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 -
..
~
Failure as regards pleadings not fatal - Pleadings in such
matters ought not be construed too technically - If the
y
partnership formed was for cancelling the sub-letting, Court
is required to tear the veil of partnership - Constitution of India,
E 1950 - Article 227 - Pleadings.
Rent Control and Eviction - Eviction on the ground of
sub-letting - Discussed.

F
Doctrine - Rule of 'secundum allegata et prob ata' -
Applicability of.
1-
,,,
Maxim - 'Secundum allegata et probata'-Applicabi/ity
of.

Appellants-landlord filed petition for eviction against
G the tenant on the ground of sub-letting. Tenant denied the
plea of sub-letting, stating that he had started the
business in the name of a partnership firm of which he +
and his family members were the partners and the

H 558

... I
MS. CELINA COELHO PEREIRA & ORS. v. ULHAS 559
MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR & ORS.
premises was exclusively in his possession. Rent A
Controller held that sub-letting was established and
directed the tenants to vacate the premises. Appeal
against the order of Rent Controller was dismissed
upholding the order of Rent Controller. In writ petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, High Court B
set aside the orders of the courts below. Hence the
present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
°""'(

~
HELD: 1.1. In order to prove mischief of subletting as' c
a ground for eviction under rent control laws, two
ingredients have to be established, i.e. parting with
possession of tenancy or part of it by tenant in favour of.
a third party with exclusive right of possession; and that
such parting with possession has been done without the D
~
consent of the landlord and in lieu of compensation or
rent. [Para 28] (582-A-B]
y
1.2. Inducting a partner or partners in the business
or profession by a tenant by itself does not amount to
~
subletting. However, if the purpose of such partnership E
1

is ostensible and a deed of partnership is drawn to
conceal the real transaction of sub-letting, the court may
tear the veil of partnership to find out the real nature of
t transaction entered into by the tenant. [Para 28] [582-C]
F
1.3. The existence of deed of partnership between
tenant and alleged sub-tenant or ostensible transaction
in any other form would not preclude the landlord from
bringing on record material and circumstances, by
adducing evidence or by means of cross-examination, G
making out a case of sub-letting or parting with
possession in tenancy premises by the tenant in favour
+- of a third person. [Para 28] [582-D-E]

1.4. If tenant is actively associated with the
H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A partnership business and retains the control over the
tenancy premises with him, may be along with partners,
the tenant may not be said to have parted with l"-
possession. [Para 28] [582-E-F]

1.5. Initial burden of proving sub-letting is on landlord
B
but once he is able to establish that a third party is in
exclusive possession of the premises and that tenant has
no legal possession of the tenanted premises, the onus
shifts to tenant to prove the nature of occupation of such
third party and that he (tenant) continues to hold legal y
c possession in tenancy premises. [Para 28] [582-G] f;:

I
1.6. Initial burden lying on landlord would stand '
discharged liy adducing prima facie proof of the fact that
a party other than tenant was in exclusive possession of
D the premises. A presumption of sub-letting may then be
raised and would amount to proof unless rebutted. [Para ..
28] [582-H; 583-A]
'f
2.1. High Court judgment is erroneous. It erred in
holding that the tenant wanted to examine one of the
E partners, but he was not permitted by the Rent Controller.
This is factually incorrect inasmuch as there is nothing
on record to suggest that the tenant wanted to examine
one of the partners. What appears from record is that an
application came to be filed by the firm to whom the
F premises in question was sub-let through its partner for t
its impleadment and intervention but the said application
was reJected. The said order never came to be challenged
by the firm. The High Court also failed to advert to the
question whether the firm was a genuine partnership firm
G or was a camouflage to cover up the mischief of
subletting. Though, the Administrative Tribunal as well as
the Additional Rent Controller have recorded a specific
finding that the partnership was not genuine partnership
and it was created with an intention to circumvent the
H
MS. CELINA COELHO PEREIRA & ORS. v. ULHAS 561
MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR & ORS.

-4' provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu, Buildings (Lease, A
Rend and Eviction Control) Act, 1968, but the High Court
did not go into this aspect on the ground that there was
no specific pleading to this effect in the application for
t eviction. [Para 16] [570-F-H; 571-A-C]
B
Associated Hotels of India Ltd., Delhi v. S.B. Sardar
Ranjit Singh AIR 1968 SC 933; Smt. Krishnawati v. Hans Raj
(1974) 1 SCC 280; Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad
1f Mirasaheb Kadri & Ors, (1987) 3 SCC 538; Jagan Nath
(Deceased) through LRs. vs. Chander Bhan And Ors. (1988)
c
-
"-=!
'
3 SCC 57; Gopal Saran vs. Satyanarayana (1989) 3 SCC 56;
G.K. Bhatnagar (Dead) By LRs. vs. Abdul Alim (2002) 9 SCC
516; Parvinder Singh vs. Renu Gautam and Ors. (2004) 4
SCC 794; Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) vs. G. V. Srinivasa
~
Murthy (2005) 1 SCC 481; Vaishakhi Ram and. Ors. v.
Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani (2008) 14 SCC 356; Nirmal Kanta D
., (Dead) Through LRs. v. Ashok Kumar and Anr. (2008) 7 SCC
/.
722, relied on.

2.2. The High Court is not justified in non-suiting the
landlord on the ground that he has not pleaded that E
business of the firm is not conducted by its partners; and
that tenant has parted with the premises by sub-letting
the same under the garb of deed of partnership by
\ constituting a bogus firm. Lack of pleading as to whom
the premises in question has been sublet, cannot be held F
to be fatal. A transaction such as sub-letting by tenant
which is not permissible under lease may be outwardly
a deceptive arrangement and landlord may not come to
know of true facts. The pleadings in such matters ought
not to be construed too tec~nically. The true test, is to
G
see whether the other side has been taken by surprise
~
or prejudiced. [Para 29] [583-8-E]

2.3 If the purpose of constituting partnership by the
tenant is ostensible and a deed of partnership is drawn
H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A to conceal the real transaction of subletting in a given
~
case, the court may be required to tear the veil of
partnership to find out the real nature of transaction
entered into by the tenant and in such circumstances the
evidence let in by the landlord cannot be ignored on the
'I-
B ground that there is some variance between pleading ~
and proof. In a case such as the present one, the rule of
secundum allegata et probata is not strictly applicable as
the tenant cannot be said to have been put to any
prejudice. [Para 30] (583-F-H]
,...
c ~
2.4. The High Court has been too technical in
construing the pleadings of the case overlooking the fact ·
·-
~

that plea of sub-letting has been .set up by landlord in the ;,•
plaint and there has been full and criti.cal examination of
the evidence by the Additional Rent Controller as well as
D the Administrative Tribunal. The Additional Rent Controller
"
and the Administrative Tribunal cannot be said to have ~

misdirected themselves either on law or on factS. Both
Authorities found as a fact that the firm was not a
"
genuine partnership and it was formed to cover up the
E sub-letting of the suit premises. They also found as a fact
that the partnership having not been found to be genuine
partnership, it was difficult to hold that the tenant
continued to have a control over the suit premises.
These findings are based on the consideration of f
F evidence on record. It cannot be said that the aforesaid
view is not a possible view. [Para 31] [584-A-D]

Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta and Anr.
(1975) 1 SCC 858; State through Special Cell, New Delhi v.
Navjot Sandhu alias Afshan Guru And Ors. (2003) 6 SCC
G
641; Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram
(1986) 4 SCC 447; State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind and Ors. ~
(2001) 1 SCC 4; Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash (2004) 3
SCC 682; Shamshad Ahmad and Ors. v. Tilak Raj Bajaj
(Deceased) through LRs. and Ors. (2008) 9 sec 1, relied on
H
MS. CELINA COELHO PEREIRA & ORS. v. ULHAS '563
MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR & ORS.
3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case A
... -1 and the findings recorded by the Additional Rent
Controller as well as the Administrative Tribunal, High
Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent
i orders of eviction based on the ground of sub-letting in
exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution B
of India. [Para 35] [586-D-E]

4. It is also not correct to say that the powers of the
( ~ _.., Rent Controller under the Act, 1968 are exercisable like
that of courts of Mamlatdars under the Goa, Daman and
Diu The Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966 and that onus never
c
shifted to the tenant. [Para 36] [586-F]
Case Law Reference :
~ Para 18
AIR 1968 SC 933 Relied on
~ D
(1974) 1 sec 2ao Relied on Para 19
)"
(1987) 3 sec 538 Relied on Para 20
(1988) a sec 57 Relied on Para 21
E
(1989) 3 sec 56 Relied on Para 22
(2002) 9 sec 516 Relied on Para 23
~~ (2004) 4 sec 794 Relied on Para 24
(2005) 1 sec 48.1 Relied on Para 25 F

(2008) 14 sec 356 Relied on Para 26
(2008) 1 sec 122 Relied on Para 27
(1975) 1 sec 858 Relied on Para 32 G
(2003) 6 sec 641 Relied on Para 33
(1986) 4 sec 447 Relied on Para 34
(2001) 1 sec 4 Relied on Para 34
H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A (2004) 3 sec 682
(2008) g sec 1
Relied on

Relied on
Para 34
Para 34
~
-"

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
7258 of 2009.
B
From the Judgment & Order dated 29.11.2006 of the High
Court Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 156 of 1999.

Ranjit Kumar, Binu Tamta, Prashant Shukla, for the
,,..., .
Appellants.
c
Surendra Desai, Prashant Kumar, Triveni Poteker, J.K.
Mahapatra, Amarjit Singh Bedi, for the Respondents. '

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J...
D .
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
y
2. Abilio Coelho Pereira - since deceased and now
represented by the present appellants, (for the sake of
convenience hereinafter referred to as 'landlord'), made an
E application on April 6, 1979 before the Rent Controller, Goa
North Division, Panaji for eviction of Mahabaleshwar
•
Ramchandra Colcar - since deceased and now represented
by the respondents - (hereinafter referred to as 'tenant') on the
grounds of subletting and change of user, as provided in Goa, {
F Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent_ & Eviction) Control Act,
1968, (for short, 'Act, 1968'). The landlord in the application for
eviction averred that a building situated at Stres Joao de
Castro, Panaji is owned by him; that one of the rooms on the
ground floor of the said building was let out to the tenant @
Rs.80/- per month on January 10, 1959 for grocery business;
G
that initially the lease was for a period of two years but later on
it was renewed from time to time and the last renewal was +
made upto October 10, 1969; that on coming into force of Act,
1968 the tenant became statutory tenant; that the tenant without
permission or consent of the landlord has transferred/sublet
H
MS. CELINA COELHO PEREIRA & ORS. v. ULHAS 565
MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR & ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]

tenancy interest in the premises to Mandovi Tours and Travels; A
-1 that the transferee/sub-lessee is exclusively running the business
in the said rented premises and that no grocery shop is being
run by the tenant in the said premises.

3. The tenant traversed the application for eviction and B
denied that he has transferred/sublet the premises to Mandovi
Tours and Travels or that the tenancy interest in the said
premises has been let out to the said partnership concern. The
• -f tenant's defence in the written statement was that having
advanced in age, he was not doing good business in grocery
and he thought of starting the business of tours and travels
c
within the territory of Goa and, for this reason, he formed a
partnership in the name and style of M/s. Mandovi Tours and
Travels and took his son and daughter-in-law as his partners
along with one Smt. Kunda Wagh. The tenant further averred
that booking and reservation of passengers and ·tourists is D
being done from the said premises by the firm and that the
y possession of the premises continues to be with him
exclusively. An additional written statement was filed by the
tenant on September 25, 1979 but since nothing material turns
on that, it is not necessa·rY' to refer to the said additional written E
statement.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application
>. came to be filed by Mis. Mandovi Tours and Travels through its
~-
partner Umesh Kolkar for its impleadment and intervention but F
the said application came to be rejected on September 15,
1984.

5. It may be noticed here that the original tenant died on
May 18, 1986 and his legal heirs (present respondents) were
impleaded as respondents. G

-+- 6. The Additional Rent Controller, Panaji Sub-Division,
Panaji-Goa recorded the evidence of the parties and, after
hearing them vide his order dated January 16, 1995 held that
ground of sub-letting was established and directed the present H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A respondents to vacate the subject premises and put the landlord
in possession within 30 days from the date of receipt of the r-...
order.

7. The present respondents challenged the order of
eviction passed by the Additional Rent Controller in an eviction
B
appeal before the Administrative Tribunal, Goa. The original
landlord seems to have died during the pendency of appeal
and the present appellants who are his legal representatives
were brought on record. 'It--'"'
c. 8. The Administrative Tribunal, Goa, after hearing the
parties, dismissed appeal on December 24, 1998. Thus, the
eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller was
upheld by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa.
Ir
D 9. The present respondents, not satisfied with the
~
concurrent orders, preferred writ petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
'i
10. Vide judgment and order dated November 29, 2006,
••
High Court alloweq the writ petition and s~.t aside the concurrent
E orders of eviction passed by the Additional Rent Controller and
the Admini~trative Tribunal. It is from this order that the present
appeal by special leave has been preferred by the present
appellants.

F 11. We heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for +"
the appellants and Mr. S.G. Dessai, learned senior counsel for
the respondents at quite some length.

12. The Additional Rent Controller, aft~r sifting the evidence
let in by the parties and the covenants of the partnership deed,
G recorded his findings thus :

"It may be noted that from the covenants of the partnership +
deed it was clear that the books of accounts had to be
maintained, statement for the purpose of income tax had
H to be prepared etc. and instead of bringing this evidence
MS. CELINA COELHO PEREIRA & ORS. v. ULHAS 567
MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR & ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
into record the respondent went on saying that he could A
• -1 not produce the books of accounts as his father had fold
him that the same were not maintained from the beginning.
This statement was made on the next date of hearing when
on the previous date he had promised to produce the
same. Further the power of attorney of the respondent B
mentioned that he was not able to say how much his wife
received from the share of the sales of the two tempos
belonging to the partnership firm even the files regarding
.. -.! the income tax returns, the power of attorney of the
respondent stated that he was not aware whether any
returns have been filed or not. It is clear from this that none
c
of the partners were brought into the witness box. It is
difficult to accept that this partnership actually existed but
it was a cover front for any under-hand dealing with the
.. said Balaji Lawande and Netravalkar. It is to be noted that
D
I> neither Balaji nor Netravalkar came to depose as
witnesses. As regards to the point that the partnership was
..., y . purely a family concern it was difficult to accept when at
the time of hearing different parties of the same family
engaged different advocates and advances arguments on
their behalf. Under no circumstances, it was explained as E
to why Kunda Wagh was taken as a partner when she
could have easily been taken as an employee as she was
required for the purpose ·of liaison and planning of tours."
>
+- 13. The Additional Rent Controller, thus, held that the case F
of the tenant that the partnership firm existed cannot be
accepted and that it was a cover for an underhand dealing with
Balaji Lawande and Netravalkar. The Additional Rent Controller
went on to hold :

"....... Even if the authorities mentioned by the respondent G
in their written arguments were to support the case of the
+ respondent, it is difficult to accept this proposition
because in the facts itself and the omission of the
respondent to come out with the truth the said authorities
H

•
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A do not hold him at all. Now considering all these aspects
it 'is held that the respondent has not performed his
obligation specially with reference to the authority Y•
mentioned above in RCJ 1993 Vol. I page 292 to 295 in
the case of Trilok Singh vs. Bavanti Prasad where it was
B mentioned in the judgment "Sub-letting being clandestine
affairs direct evidence cannot ordinarily be available" have
been complied by the respondent to justify the
genuineness and the existence in practice of the said

c
partnership deed. It may be noted also that the ground
taken at later stage that two partners of the firm had "' ...
become the legal heirs of the respondent, the question of
the application of the section 2(p) i.e. the definition of the
member. of the firm of the tenant becomes applicable after
his death cannot be accepted because proceedings were
initiated well before the death of the original respondent I'.
D and it relates to the events at the time of filing of this
application. It may be .noted also that the evidence of the "
respondent was recorded through his power of attorney y
.......,
and son Ulhas during the life time and, therefore, the )
respondent cannot take shelter of this provision now.
E
Under these circumstances, as the respondent has
failed to perform his obligation to prove that there had not
been an under hand sub-letting because in all such cases,
the sub-letting was always clandestine and, therefore, direct ,...
evidence cannot be brought by the applicant and hence t
F
the duty cast on the respondent."

14. The Administrative Tribunal also held that the
partnership - Mandovi Tours and Travels - was not a genuine
partnership and it was formed to cover up subletting of suit
G premises. For recording this finding, the Administrative Tribunal
gave the following reasons:
+
"Admittedly, the appellants did not examine any of
the partners of the partnership firm before the Rent
H
MS. CELINA COELHO PEREIRA & ORS. v. ULHAS 569
MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR & ORS. [RM. LODHA, J.]
Controller. However, the appellants examined one Shri A
--1 Ulhas Kholkar as a power of attorney for the original tenant.
In fact, he happens to be the son of the original tenant.
According to this witness, the appellants started the
business in the suit premises under the name and style M/
s. Mandovi Tour &Travels in February 1977 for conducting B
sight seeing tours. This witness was cross-examined by
the respondents. From the trend of the cross examination
of this witness, it is clear that the partnership was not at
. .., all acted upon and it only remained as a paper document.
He has admitted that the Mandovi Tours and Travels has c
not maintained any books of accounts from the inception.
It was suggested to this witness that there are no account
books as partnership business does not exist at all which
suggestion was denied by this witness. It was also
. suggested to this witness that the suit premises are in D
exclusive possession of Sitakant Netravalkar and Balaji
Lawande which suggestion was also denied by this
"" witness. His wife happens to be one of the partners but
he does not know what income his wife receives from the
partnership business. In his cross-examination, he has also
E
stated that he cannot say as to who shall retain the
premises in case the partnership was dissolved. As per
clause 7 of the Partnership Deed, it was necessary for the
,,. partnership firm to open bank account in the name of firm
4- to be operated by second and third party jointly. As per
clause 8 of the partnership deed the accounting year of F
the partnership was from 1st April ending on 31st March
every year and the first sets of books were required to be
closed on 31.3.1978. As per clause 9 of the partnership
deed, it was necessary to keep proper books of accounts
and which were required to be completed on 31st March G
every year. However, it is pertinent to note that the
...... appellants have not brought any evidence on record to
show that they have opened a bank account in the name
of the firm. The appellants have also not brought any
H

'
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A evidence on record to show that books of accounts were
maintained by the partnership firm. In my view, therefore, )--
the evidence on record clearly establishes that the said
partnership was not at all a genuine partnership and it was
created only to circumvent the provisions of the Rent
B Control Act."

15. The Administrative Tribunal also held that the tenant
did not hold any control over the suit premises and though his
case was that to do travel business, a firm Mandovi Tours and y-
Travels was constituted but failed to prove that Mandovi Tours
c and Travels was a genuine partnership. This is what the
Administrative Tribunal said :

"In the present case before me the original tenant
had only 10% share. The partner Sr:nt. Kunda J. Vagh who
D is stranger has 30% shares. As discussed above, the said ...
partnership is found not to be genuine partnership and it
was formed to cover up the sub-letting of the suit premises. 1
This being the position, it is difficult to hold that the
appellants still have a control over the suit premises. I am,
E therefore, satisfied that the appellants have parted with the
possession of the suit premises to the said Mandovi Tours
and Travels. The appellants have failed to prove that the
said partnership was a genuine partnership."
...
16. Insofar as High Court is concerned, two errors are i
F apparent from its judgment. In the first place, High Court erred
in holding that the tenant wanted to examine one of the partners,
Umesh Mahabaleshwar Kholkar but he was not permitted by
the Rent Controller. This is factually incorrect inasmuch as there
is nothing on record that even remotely suggests that the tenant
G wanted to examine one of the partners Umesh Mahabaleshwar
Kholkar. What appears from record is that an application came
to be filed by M/s. Mandovi Tours and Travels through its partner
Umesh Kholkar for its impleadment and intervention but the said
application was rejected on September 15, 1994. The fact of
H the matter is that the said order never came to be challenged
MS. CELINA COELHO PEREIRA & ORS. v. ULHAS 571
MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR & ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
by Mis. Mandovi Tours and Travels. Secondly, the High Court A
---¥ failed to advert to the question whether the firm M/s. Mandovi
Tours and Travels was a genuine partnership firm or was a
camouflage to cover up the mischief of subletting. Though, the
Administrative Tribunal as well as the Additional Rent Controller
have recorded a specific finding that the partnership Mis. B
Mandovi Tours and Travels was not genuine partnership and it
was created with an intention to circumvent the provisions of
Act, 1968, but the High Court did not go into this aspect on the
r ground that there was no specific pleading to this effect in the
application for eviction. c
17. Section 22(2)(b )(i) of the Act, 1968 which is relevant
for the present appeal reads thus :

"22. Grounds for eviction. - (1) .............. (2) If the
,,, Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity D
of showing cause against the application, is satisfied -
1f
(a) .........................................................

(b) that the tenant has without the written consent of the
landlord - E

(i) transferred his right under the lease or sub-let the
entire building or any portion thereof, or"
,. t-
18. In the case of Associated Hotels of India Ltd., Delhi
F
v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh 1 , this Court held that when eviction
is sought on the ground of subletting, the onus to prove
subletting is on the landlord. It was further held that if the landlord
prima facie shows that the third party is in exclusive possession
of the premises let out for valuable consideration, it would then
be for the tenant to rebut the evidence. G

+ 19. The aforesaid legal position was also noticed by this
Court in the case of Smt. Krishnawati v. Hans Raj2.
1. AIR 1968 SC 933
2. (1974) 1 sec 280 H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 20. In Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb
Kadri & Others3 , this Court held that in a case where a tenant 't-
becomes a partner of a partnership firm and allows the firm to
carry on business in the demised premises while he himself
retains legal possession thereof, the act of the tenant does not
B amount to subletting. It was held that whether there is genuine
partnership or not must be judged in the facts of each case in
the light of the principles applicable to partnership.

21. While dealing with the mischief contemplated under
Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 providing
..,-
c for eviction on the ground of subletting, this Court in the case
of Jagan Nath (Deceased) through LRs. vs. Chander Bhan
And Ors. 4 held:

"The question for consideration is whether the· mischief
D contemplate~ under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act has been
committed as the tenant had sublet, assigned, or otherwise '
parted with the possession of the whole or part of the
1
premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the
landlord. There is no dispute that there was no consent in
E writing of the landlord in this case. There is also no
evidence that there has been any subletting or assignment.
The only ground perhaps upon which the landlord was
seeking eviction was parting with possession. It is well
settled that parting with possession meant giving ..
-l
F possession to persons other than those to whom
possession had been given by the lease and the parting •
with possession must have been by the tenant; user by
other person is not parting with possession so long as the
tenant retains the legal possession himself, or in other
words there must be vesting of possession by the tenant
G in another person by divesting himself not only of physical
possession but also of the right to possession. So long as
the tenant retains the right to possession there is no parting +
3. (1987) 3 sec 538

H 4. (1988) 3 sec 57
MS. CELINA COELHO PEREIRA & ORS. v. ULHAS 573
MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR & ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]

with possession in terms of clause (b) of Section 14(1) of A
-t
the Act. Even though the father had retired from the
business and the sons had been looking after the business,
in the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the father
had divested himself of the legal right to be in possession.
If the father has a right to displace the possession of the B
occupants, i.e., his sons, it cannot be said that the tenant
had parted with possession"
·-'f
22. The question whether the tenant has assigned, sublet
or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any
part of the premises without the permission of the landlord
c
within the meaning of Section 13(1 )(e) of the Rajasthan
Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, fell for
consideration in Gopal Saran vs. Satyanarayana 5• This Court
,,. held: \ D
"Sub-letting means transfer of an exclusive right to enjoy
Y"
the property in favour of the third party. In this connection,
reference may be made to the decision of this Court in
Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H. C. Sharma [(1988) 1
sec 70] where it was held that to constitute a sub-letting, E
there must be a parting of legal possession, i.e.,
possession with the right to include and also right to
; exclude others and whether in a particular case there was
+ sub-letting was substantially a question of fact. In that case,
a reference was made at page 77 of the report to the F
Treatise of Foa on Landlord and Tenant, 6th edn., at page
323, for the proposition that the mere act of letting other
persons into possession by the tenant, and permitting them
to use the premises for their own purposes, is not, so long
as he retains the legal possession himself, a breach of
G
covenant. In paragraph 17 of the report, it was observed
that parting of the legal possession means possession
with the right to include and also right to exclude others. In

5. (1989) 3 sec 56
H
f

574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A the last mentioned case, the observations of the Madras
High Court in Gundalapal/i Rangamannar Chetty v. Desu +-
Rangiah (AIR 1954 Mad 182) were approved by this Court
in which the legal position in Jackson v. Simons ((1923)
1 Ch 373) were relied upon. The Madras High Court had l;

B also relied on a judgment of Scrutton L.J. in Chaplin v.
Smith ((1926) 1 KB 198] at page 211 of the report where
it was said :

He did not assign, nor did he underlet. He was y-<
constantly on the premises himself and kept the key ,.•
c o.f them. He did business of his own as well as
business of the company. In my view he allowed the
'~
company to use the premises while he himself
remained in possession of them.

D This position was also accepted in Vishwa Nath v. ....
Chaman Lal (AIR 1975 Del. 117) wherein it was observed
y
that parting with possession is understood as parting with
legal possession by one in favour of the other by giving
him an exclusive possession to the ouster of the grantor.
E If the grantor had retained legal possession with him it was
not a case of parting with possession."

The court also reiterated that to prove sub-tenancy, two
ingredients have to be established, firstly, the tenant must have
exclusive right of possession or interests in the premises or part
+""'
F of the premises in question and secondly, the right must be in
lieu of payment of some compensation or rent. t
23. In the case of G.K. Bhatnagar (Dead) By LRs. v. Abdul
Alim6 , this Court held as follows :
G
"A conjoint reading of these provisions shows that on and
after 9-6-1952, sub-letting, assigning or otherwise parting +
with the possessi~n. of the whole or any par:t of the tenancy

6. (2002) g sec 516
H
MS. CELINA COELHO PEREIRA & ORS. v. ULHAS 575
MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR & ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
premises, without obtaining the consent in writing of the A
-t landlord, is not permitted and if done, the same provides
a ground for eviction of the tenant by the landlord. However,
inducting a partner in his business or profession by the
tenant is permitted so long as such partnership is genuine.
If the purpose of such partnership may ostensibly be to B
carry on the business or profession in partnership, but the
real purpose be sub-letting of the premises to such other
person who is inducted ostensibly as a partner, then the
'1 same shall be deemed to be an act of sub-letting attracting
the applicability of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section c
14 of the Act."

24. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Parvinder Singh
v. Renu Gautam and Others7 commented upon the device
adopted by tenants many a time in creating partnership as a
camouflage to circumvent the provisions of the Rent Control Act. D
The following observations are worth noticing :
'f

"The rent control legislations which extend many a
protection to the tenant, also provide for grounds of
eviction. One such ground, most common in all the E
legislations, is sub-letting or parting with possession of the
tenancy premises by the tenant. Rent control laws usually
protect the tenant so long as he may himself use the
>
-~ premises but not his transferee inducted into possession
of the premises, in breach of the contract or the law, which F
act is often done with the object of illegitimate profiteering
or rack-renting. To defeat the provisions of law, a device
is at times adopted by unscrupulous tenants and sub-
tenants of bringing into existence a deed of partnership
which gives the relationship of tenant and sub-tenant an
G
outward appearance of partnership while in effect what has
.....,_
come into existence is a sub-tenancy or parting with
possession camouflaged under the cloak of partnership.
Merely because a tenant has entered into a partnership
7. (2004) 4 sec 794 H
MS. CELINA COELHO PEREIRA & ORS. v. ULHAS577
MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR & ORS. [RM. LODHA, J.]
from bringing on record material and circumstances, by A
adducing evidence or by means of cross-examination,
making out a case of sub-letting or parting with possession
or interest in tenancy premises by the tenant in favour of a
third person. The rule as to exclusion of oral by
documentary evidence governs the parties to the deed in s
writing. A stranger to the document is not bound by the
terms of the document and is, therefore, not excluded from
demonstrating the untrue or collusive nature of the
document or the fraudulent or illegal purpose for which it
was brought into being. An enquiry into reality of c
transaction is not excluded merely by availability of writing
reciting the transaction ......... "

25. In yet another decision, a three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Mahendra Saree Emporium (//) v. G. V. Srinivasa
Murthy considered earlier decisions, few of which have been D
referred above, while dealing with a matter relating to subletting
of the premises within the meaning of Section 21 (1 )(f) of
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and observed as follows :

"The term "sub-let" is not defined in the Act - new E
or old. However, the definition of "lease" can be adopted
mutatis mutandis for defining "sub-lease". What is "lease"
between the owner of the property and his tenant becomes
a sub-lease when entered into between the tenant and
tenant of the tenant, the latter being sub-tenant qua the F
owner-landlord. A lease of immovable property as defined
in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is a
transfer of a right to enjoy such property made for a certain
time for consideration of a price paid or promised. A
transfer of a right to enjoy such property to the exclusion G
of all others during the term of the lease is sine qua non
of a lease. A sub-lease would imply parting with by the
tenant of the right to enjoy such property in favour of his
sub-tenant. Different types of phraseology are employed

8. (2005) 1 sec 481 H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A by different State Legislatures making provision for eviction
on the ground of sub-letting. Under Section 21(1)(f) of the 'f-
old Act, the phraseology employed is quite wide. It
embraces within its scope sub-letting of the whole or part
of the premises as also assignment or transfer in any other
B manner of the lessee's interest in the tenancy. premises.
The exact nature of transaction entered into or '--
!-
· arrangement or understanding arrived at between the
tenant and alleged sub-tenant may not be in the knowledge
of the landlord and such a transaction being unlawful would · 'r A( ;
obviously be entered into in secrecy depriving the owner-
c landlord of the means of ascertaining the facts .about the
same. However still, the rent control legislation being
protective for the ten~nt and eviction being not permissible
·except on the availability of ground therefor having been
made out to the satisfaction of the court or the Controller,
D
the burden of proving the availability of the ground is cast
on the landlord i.e. the one who seeks eviction. In
'
l(
Krishnawati v. Hans Raj [(1974) 1 SCC 289] reiterating
the view taken in Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. S.B.
Sardar Ranjit Singh [(1968) 2 SCR 548] this Court so
E noted the settled law: (SCC p. 293, para 6)

"[T]he onus to prove sub-letting is on the landlord.
If the landlord prima facie shows that the occupant ....
who was in exclusive possession of the premises
let out for valuable consideration, it would then be
+
F
for the tenant to rebut the evidence."

Thus, in the case of sub-letting, the onus lying on the
landlord would stand discharged by adducing prima facie
proof of the fact that the alleged sub-tenant was in
G exclusive possession of the premises or, to borrow ttie
language of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, t-
was holding right to enjoy such property. A presumption
of sub-letting may then be raised and would amount to
proof unless rebutted. In the context of the premises having
H
MS. CELINA COELHO PEREIRA & ORS. v. ULHAS 579
MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR & ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]

,,..
been sub-let or possession parted with by the tenant by A
adopting the device of entering into partnership, it would
-~
suffice for us to notice three decisions of this Court.
Murlidhar v. Ch uni Lal (1970 Ren CJ 922) is a case where
a shop was let out to a firm of the name of Chuni Lal
Gherulal. The firm consisted of three partners, namely, 8
Chuni Lal, Gherulal and Meghraj. This partnership closed
and a new firm by the name of Meghraj Bansidhar
commenced its business with partners Meghraj and
Bansidhar. The tenant firm was sought to be evicted on
~ 'I
the ground that the old firm and the new firm being two c
different ·legal entities, the occupation of the shop by the
new firm amounted to sub-letting. This Court discarded the
contention as "entirely without substance" and held that a
partnership firm is not a legal entity; the firm name is only
a compendious way of describing the partners of the firm.
D
Therefore, occupation by a firm is only occupation by its
partners. The two firms, old and new, had a common
1 partner, namely, Meghraj, who continued to be in
possession and it was fallacious to contend that earlier he
was in possession in the capacity of partner of the old firm
and later as a partner of the new firm. The landlord, in order E
to succeed, has to prove it as a fact that there was a sub-
letting by his tenant to another firm. As the premises
continued to be in possession of one of the original
,;
tenants, Meghraj, then by a mere change in the
~
constitution of the firm of which Meghraj continued to be a F
partner, an inference as to sub-letting could not be drawn
in the absence of further evidence having been adduced
to establish sub-letting. In Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed
Mohd. Mirasaheb Kadri [(1987) 3 SCC 538] the tenant
had entered into a partnership and the firm was carrying G
on business in the tenancy premises. This Court held that
if there was a partnership firm of which the appellant was
a partner as a tenant, the same would not amount to sub-
letting leading to forfeiture of the tenancy; for there cannot
be a sub-letting unless the lessee parted with the legal H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A possession. The mere fact that another person is allowed
to use the premises while the lessee retains the legal
possession is not enough to create a sub-lease. Thus, the -t-
thrust is, as laid down by this Court, on finding out who is
in legal possession of the premises. So long as the legal
B possession remains with the tenant the mere factum of the
tenant having entered into partnership for the purpose of
carrying on the business in the tenancy premises would not
amount to sub-letting. In Parvinder Singh v. Renu Gautam
((2004) 4 SCC 794] a three-Judge Bench of this Court
y~
devised the test in these terms: (SCC p. 799, para 8)
c
"If the tenant is actively associated with the partnership
business and retains the use and control over the tenancy
premises with him, maybe along with the partners, the
tenant may not be said to have parted with possession.
D However, if the user and control of the tenancy premises
has been parted with and deed of partnership has been
drawn up as an indirect method of collecting the
'
'f
consideration for creation of sub-tenancy or for providing
a cloak or cover to conceal a transaction not permitted by
E law, the court is not estopped from tearing the veil of
partnership and finding out the real nature of transaction
J

entered into between the tenant and the alleged sub-
tenant"."
~

26. In Vaishakhi Ram and Others v. Sanjeev Kumar -t
F
Bhatiani9 , one of us (Tarun Chatterjee, J.), in a case of subletting
under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, held:

"A plain reading of this provision would show that if
a tenant has sub-let or assigned or otherwise parted with
G the possession of the whole or any part of the premises
without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord, he
would be liable to be evicted from the said premises. That
1-
is to say, the following ingredients must be satisfied before

9. (2oos) 14 sec 356
H
MS .. CELINA COELHO PEREIRA & ORS. v. ULHAS 581
-MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR & ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]

-¥
an order of eviction can be passed on the ground of sub- A
letting:

(1) the tenant has sub-let or assigned or parted with
the possession of the whole or any part of the
premises; B
(2) such sub-letting or assigning or parting with the
possession has been done without obtaining the
~ " consent in writing of the landlord."

.............. "It is well settled that the burden of proving sub- c
letting is on the landlord but if the landlord proves that the
sub-tenant is in exclusive possession of the suit premises,
then the onus is shifted to the tenant to prove that it was
not a case ofsub-letting."
'.,;
27. In Nirmal Kanta (Dead) Through LRs. v. Ashok D
.. '"' Kumar and Another10 , this Court held thus :

"What constitutes sub-letting has repeatedly fallen for the
consideration of this Court in various cases and it is now
well-established that a sub-tenancy or a sub-letting comes E
into existence when the tenant inducts a third party stranger
to the landlord into the tenanted accommodation and parts
"' i with possession thereof wholly or in part in favour of such
third party and puts him in exclusive possession thereof.
The lessor and/or a landlord seeking eviction of a lessee F
or tenant alleging creation of a sub-tenancy has to prove
such allegation by producing proper evidence to that effect.
Once it is proved that the lessee and/or tenant has parted
with exclusive possession of the demised premises for a
monetary consideration, the creation of a sub-tenancy and/ G
or the allegation of sub-letting stands established."
~

28. The legal position that emerges from the aforesaid
decisions can be summarised thus :

- 1o. (2008) 7 sec 722 H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A (i) In order to prove mischief of subletting as a ground for 1',-
eviction under rent control laws, two ingredients have to be
established, (one) parting with possession of tenancy or part
of it by tenant in favour of a third party with exclusive right of
possession and (two) that such parting with possession has
B been done without the consent of the landlord and in lieu of
compensation or rent.

(ii) Inducting a partner or partners in the business or '\.' ~
profession by a tenant by itself does not amount to subletting.
However, if the purpose of such partnership is ostensible and
c a deed of partnership is drawn to conceal the real transaction
of sub-letting, the court may tear the veil of partnership to find
out the real nature of transaction entered into by the tenant.

(iii) The existence of deed of partnership between tenant
D and alleged sub-tenant or ostensible transaction in any other
form would not preclude the landlord from bringing on record 'y
'
material and circumstances, by adducing evidence or by means ·\

of cross-examination, making out a case of sub-letting or
parting with possession in tenancy premises by the tenant in
E favour of a third person.

(iv) If tenant is actively associated with the partnership
business and retains the control over the tenancy premises with .I.
him, may be along with partners, the tenant may not be said to ~·
have parted with possession.
F
(v) Initial burden of proving subletting is on landlord but once
he is able to establish that a third party is in exclusive
possession of the premises and that tenant has no legal
possession of the tenanted premises, the onus shifts to tenant
G to prove the nature of occupation of such third party and that
he (tenant) continues to hold legal possession in tenancy )Ir-
premises.

(vi) In other words, initial burden lying on landlord would

H
stand discharged by adducing prima facie proof of the fact that
..
MS. CELINA COELHO PEREIRA & ORS. v. ULHAS 583
MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR & ORS. [RM. LODHA. J.]
a party other than tenant was in exclusive possession of the A
premises. A presumption of sub-letting may then be raised and
would amount to proof unless rebutted.

29. The main question that falls to be determined in the
present case is: is High Court justified in non-suiting the
landlord on the ground that he has not pleaded that business 8
of the firm Mis. Mandovi Tours and Travels is not conducted by
its partners, but by Balaji Lawande ·and Netravalkar and that
·tenant has parted with the premises by subletting the same to
these two persons under the garb of deed of partnership by
constituting a bogus firm? In our judgment, the answer have to C
be in negative. In the plaint, the landlord averred that the tenant
has sub-let the premises to Mis. Mandovi Tours and Travels, a
partnership concern, without his permission and that the sub-
lessee·has been exclusively running the business in the rented
premises although he has not pleaded specifically that the D
premises have been sublet to Balaji Lawande and Netravalkar
but such lack of pleading cannot be held to be fatal. It has to
be kept in mind that a transaction such as sub-letting by tenant
which is not permissible under lease may be outwardly a
deceptive arrangement and landlord may not come to know of E
true facts. The pleadings in such matters ought not to be
construed too technically. The true test, as has been repeatedly
said, is to see whether the other side has been taken by
surprise or prejudiced.

30. If the purpose of constituting partnership by the tenant F
is ostensible and a deed of partnership is drawn to conceal the
real trans~ction of subletting in a given case, the court may be
required to tear the veil of partnership to find out the real nature
of transaction entered into by the tenant and in such
circumstances the evidence let in by the landlord cannot be G
ignored on the ground that there is some variance between '
pleading and proof. In a case such as the present one, the rule
of secundum allegata et probata is not strictly applicable as
the tenant cannot be said to have been put to any prejudice.
H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 31. The High Court, as the discussion in impugned
judgment shows, has been too technical in construing the "<(-
pleadings of the case overlooking the fact that plea of sub-
letting. has been set up by landlord in the plaint and there has
been full and critical examination of the evidence by the
B Additional Rent Controller as well as the Administrative ~

Tribunal. The Additional Rent Controller and the Administrative
Tribunal cannot be said _to have misdirected themselves either
on law or on facts. Both Authorities found as a fact that
Mandovi Tours and Travels was not a genuine partnership and )' .....

it was formed to cover up the subletting of the suit premises.
c They also found as a fact that the partnership h~ving not been
found to be genuine partnership, it was difficult to hold that the
tenant continued to have a control over the suit premises. These
findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal as well as the
Additional Rent Controller are based on the consideration of
D evidence on record. In any case, it cannot be said that the ...
aforesaid view of the Rent Control Authorities is not a possible y
view. ~ .......

32. In Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta
11
E And Another , this Court held :

"The High Court cannot in guise of exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of
appeal when the Legislature has not conferred a right of ..
appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or +
F tribunal final on facts."

33. In State through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot
Sandhu alias Afshan Guru And Others12 this Court explained ,
the power of the High Court under Article 227 thus : "
G
'Thus the law is that Article 227 of the Constitution of India
gives the High Court the power of superintendence over

11. (1975) 1 sec 858
12. (2003) 6 sec 641

-
H
MS. CELINA COELHO PEREIRA & ORS. v. ULHAS585
MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR & ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]

all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation A
•-» to which it exercises jurisdiction. This jurisdiction cannot
be limited or fettered by any Act of the State Legislature.
The supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the
subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and
to seeing that they obey the law. The powers under Article B
227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends of justice.
They can be used to interfere even with an interlocutory
order. However the power under Article 227 is a
,,. 1
discretionary power and it is difficult to attribute to an order
of the High Court, such a source of power, when the High c
Court itself does not in terms purport to exercise any such
discretionary power. It is settled law that this power of
judicial superintendence, under Article 227, must be
exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts
and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not
' D
to correct mere errors. Further, where the statute bans the
'f exercise of revisional pow~rs it would require very
exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India since the power of
superintendence was not meant to circumvent statutory law.
It is settled law that the jurisdiction under Article 227 could E
not be exercised "as the cloak of an appeal in disguise"."

J 34. The aforesaid two decisions and few other decisions,
-~
namely, Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S.
Guram 13 , State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind & Ors.14, Ranjeet F
Singh v. Ravi Prakash 15 , came to be considered by this Court
in the case of Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. v. Tilak Raj Bajaj
(Deceased) through LRs. And Others16 and this Court held :

"Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and
G
227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and
~
13. (1986) 4 sec 447
14. (2001) 1 sec 4
15. (2004) 3 sec 682
1s. (2008) 9 sec 1 H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it
exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised i;- ..
within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature.
The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court
of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh
B the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate
court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct
errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own
decision for that ofthe inferior court or tribunal. The powers
are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in
"~
c appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts
and inferior tribunals within the limits of law."

35. In light of the aforesaid legal position concerning
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227, which the High
Court failed to keep in mind, it must be held that in the facts \
,1
D and circumstances of the case and the findings recorded by _,,

the Additional Rent Controller as well as the Administrative ~

Tribunal, High Court was not justified in interfering with the y
~
concurr~nt orders of eviction based on the ground of sub-letting
in exercise of its po~er under Article 227 of the Constitution of
E India.
36. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the
respondents that the powers of the Rent Controller under the
Act, 1968 are exercisable like that of courts of Mamlatdars :.
J-
under the Goa, Daman and Diu the Mamlatdar's Court Act,
F
1966 and that onus never shifted to the tenant is devoid of any
substance and is noted to be rejected.

37. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal must be allowed
and is allowed. The judgment dated November 29, 2006
G passed by the High Court is set aside. The parties will bear
their own costs.

K.K.T. Appeal allowed. ""