J.M. Tandon, J.
1. Vidya Wati respondent filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the eviction of Madan Lal petitioner from the vacant site 15' x 26' (part of bungalow No. 519 Majitha Road, Amritsar) on the grounds of subletting and bonafide requirement for own use and occupation. The Rent Controller found both the grounds not proved and dismissed her petition. On appeal filed by the respondent, the appellate authority held that the respondent had proved that she required the land in dispute for her personal use and occupation and further the petitioner had sublet the demised premises without the written permission of the landlady. He consequently accepted the appeal and ordered the ejectment of Madan Lal petitioner, who feeling aggrieved filed civil Revision No. 1873 of 1977 in this Court, the learned single Judge vide order dated February 2, 1980. Has found the finding of the Appellate Authority on the point of bona fide requirement for the respondent in her favour unsustainable and has consequently reversed it.
2. On the point of relating to the ground of subletting, the Rent Controller found:
'Even if for the sake of arguments, the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that it is a case of exclusive use of one of the Khokhas by Rattan Lal to the exclusion of Madan Lal is believed to be tenable the mere use of Khokha by Rattan lal would not tantamount to the subletting of the demised premises. As already stated the demised premises in this case is the vacant land and not any of the Khokhas constructed thereon. It is the admitted case of the parties that the Khokhas were built on the site in dispute by Madan Lal respondent and these Khokhas do not form part of the tenancy.
3. The Appellate Authority held that there was no evidence to prove that Rattan Lal was using the shop as a brother of Madan Lal and in these circumstances the ground of subletting was established. In Civil Revision No. 1873 of 1977 before the learned single Judge the learned counsel for the Petitioner cited Banarsi Dass v. Faqir Chand, (1976) 78 Pun LR 110: (AIR 1976 Punj & Har 27), which had also been relied upon by the Rent controller and wherein it had been observed (at p. 29 of AIR):--
'What is prohibited to be sublet without the written consent of the landlord is the premises which have been let out to the tenant. What had been let out to the tenant was the open plot of land on a part of which some shops were constructed. What the petitioner has let out to the other respondents are the shops constructed by him and not the plot of land which he had taken on rent originally from Kishore Chand and subsequently from Parkash Chand.'
4. It was urged before the learned single Judge that in view of the observations made in Banarsi Dass's case (AIR 1976 Punj & Har 27)(supra), the appellate authority wrongly reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the ground of subletting. The learned single Judge has observed as under:--
'After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that in view of this judgment, the finding of subletting given by the Appellate Authority, cannot be maintained, unless I take a different view in this respect. Even if it is held that Rattan Lal is in exclusive possession of a Khokha raised on the premises in dispute, it may not amount to subletting according to the observation of the learned Judge referred to above. Sitting singly, I think it proper that the case be referred to a Division Bench on this point only, to decide the correctness of the observation made by Narula C. J. (as he then was), in Banarsi Dass's case (supra).'
5. It is under these circumstances that this case has come up before us.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of the fact that the respondent had let out the land to the petitioner and a Khokha thereon had been constructed by the petitioner who had allegedly let out to Rattan Lal, no subletting of the rented land is involved. The subletting of the Khokha by the petitioner, in favour of Rattan lal cannot, therefore, be taken s a good ground for ejectment of the former on the ground of subletting of the rented land and the observations made by Narula C. J. in Banarsi Dass's case (AIR 1976 Punj & Har 27)(supra) are correct. We re unable to agree with this contention.
The position of the tenant of a rented land would not undergo any change with the construction that may be made by him thereon. In the event of the building constructed on the rented land being let out, it cannot be said that the subletting of the land therein is not involved. The building constructed on the rented land cannot conceivably be let out without subletting the land thereunder. In this situation, with respect, we are unable to subscribe to the observations made by Narula C. J. in Banarsi Dass's case (supra) which have been reproduced above. We, therefore, hold that the observations made in Banarsi Dass's case (supra) do not lay down a good law.
7. The file of this case be laid before the learned single Judge for disposal of Civil Revision No. 1873 of 1977.
P.C. Jain, J.
8. I agree.
9. Order accordingly.