Summary
The landlord proved partial subletting, and the tenant failed to substantiate the asserted employment relationship with the outsider conducting business from the shop. The High Court wrongly rejected the pleadings and displaced the trial court’s supported findings in revision. The eviction judgment was restored with conditional time to vacate.
Issues
- Whether partial subletting was sufficiently pleaded and proved.
- Whether revisional interference with the Small Causes Court’s findings was warranted.
Provisions considered
- Sections 20(2)(e) and 25, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972Unauthorised subletting of part of the premises supplied the eviction ground on the facts proved. (¶ 11–29)
- Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887Revision could correct legally defective findings but did not justify substituting another view of properly considered evidence here. (¶ 30–32)
- Section 4-B and Rule 2-A, Uttar Pradesh Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1962 and Rules, 1963Failure to produce relevant mandatory employee-registration/intimation records supported the adverse inference against the alleged employment relationship. (¶ 33–38)
Held
- The landlord initially must prove parting with exclusive possession of the whole or part and consideration; the evidential burden then shifts. Because subletting is often concealed, monetary consideration may be inferred from established circumstances. (¶ 15–24)
- The plaint alleged occupation of a portion for watch-repair business at Rs.50 daily, and evidence supported that case. The tenant’s bare claim that the outsider was a salaried worker lacked available supporting records. (¶¶ 25–29, 32–39)
- The arrears/protection finding was not seriously challenged; the operative eviction issue before the Court was subletting. (¶ 8–9)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and Small Causes Court judgment restored. One year to vacate allowed on an undertaking filed before the trial court within four weeks.