Jagjit Singh Ahluwalia Vs Malava Devi Trust and Another

The present revision pe��on has been filed by the tenant against the concurrent orders of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur.

¶12

The facts are not in dispute. The pe��oner–tenant, Jagjit Singh Ahluwalia, was inducted into the demised premises by the respondent– landlord, Smt. Malava Devi Trust, by virtue of a rent deed dated 16.08.1996. The landlord ini�ated proceedings under Sec�on 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restric�on Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he had sub-let the premises in favour of respondent No.2, Surinder Kumar.

¶13

The defence set up by the tenant was that respondent No.2 was not a sub-tenant but had been inducted as a partner in a business carried on in the demised premises by virtue of a partnership deed dated 19.05.2009, which, according to him, was subsequently dissolved on 23.07.2009.

¶14

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.23 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

-2-

¶16

CR-2613-2026 (O&M)

¶17

The plea of tenant, however, did not find favour with the learned Rent Controller, who, vide order dated 20.12.2017, held that the alleged partnership was merely a device to conceal sub-le;ng and consequently ordered ejectment. The appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority on 05.08.2025, affirming the findings recorded by the Rent Controller.

¶18

Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the pe��oner has argued that once respondent No.2 had been inducted as a partner, the arrangement could not legally be construed as sub-le;ng, as there was no transfer of tenancy rights.

¶19

This Court, upon considera�on of the submissions and perusal of the record, finds no merit in the conten�on.

¶20

It is by now well se=led that the mere execu�on of a partnership deed does not by itself rule out sub-le;ng. The Court is required to examine the real nature of the transac�on and is not bound by its nomenclature. If the partnership is found to be a mere camouflage or a device to conceal par�ng with possession, the Court would be jus�fied in li@ing the veil to ascertain the true character of the arrangement. The decisive test is whether the tenant has retained legal possession and control over the premises.

¶21

In the present case, both the Courts below have concurrently recorded findings, based on cogent evidence, that the pe��oner had completely parted with possession and control of the demised premises in favour of respondent No.2. The tes�mony of RW-1 Harjit Singh Ahluwalia, a=orney of the pe��oner, and RW-2 Jagjit Singh himself, clearly reveals that no capital was contributed by the pe��oner towards the alleged partnership, no accounts were ever se=led upon its dissolu�on, and the en�re business was being exclusively conducted by respondent No.2. It has also come on record that respondent No.2 was in possession of the keys of

¶22

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.23 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CR-2613-2026 (O&M)

¶24

-3-

¶25

the premises, was opening and closing the establishment, and was running the business independently since May 2009.

¶26

Significantly, the alleged partnership lasted barely two months and no material has been placed on record to establish any genuine business arrangement inter se the par�es. On the contrary, the evidence unmistakably points towards exclusive possession and control of the premises being handed over to respondent No.2. Even the admission that respondent No.2 paid considera�on for use of the premises further for�fies the conclusion that the arrangement was in the nature of sub-le;ng.

¶27

The conten�on sought to be raised on the basis of subsequent disputes between the par�es, including lodging of an FIR, is of no consequence. Once it is established that possession had been parted with under a colorable device, any subsequent discord does not efface the legal consequences of sub-le;ng.

¶28

Under Sec�on 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act, transfer of possession, even of a part of the premises, without the wri=en consent of the landlord renders the tenant liable to evic�on. Admi=edly, no such consent exists in the present case.

¶29

It is also per�nent to note that the findings recorded by the Courts below are pure findings of fact based on apprecia�on of evidence. The scope of interference in revisional jurisdic�on is limited, and this Court would not reappraise evidence unless the findings are shown to be perverse or suffering from material illegality. No such infirmity has been pointed out in the present case.

¶30

On the contrary, the reasoning recorded by the learned Appellate Authority, par�cularly in examining the evidence and applying the principle of li@ing the veil of partnership, is found to be sound and in accordance with se=led law.

¶31

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.23 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CR-2613-2026 (O&M)

¶33

-4-

¶34

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plea of partnership set up by the pe��oner was rightly held to be a mere camouflage to conceal sub-le;ng, and no ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent orders of ejectment.

¶35