Controller of Printing and Stationery Vs. Yash Pal and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- j.s. khehar, j. 1. the respondent-landlord filed an ejectment petition under section 13 of the haryana urban (control of rent and eviction) act, 1973 claiming ejectment of the petitioner on account of sub-letting. it was the claim of the respondent-landlord that the premises in question had been let out to the controller of printing and stationery, haryana whereas it is now in exclusive possession and occupation of the board of school education, haryana. the rent controller did not accept the plea raised by the respondent-landlord and accordingly, dismissed the ejectment petition on 13.1.1983. the order passed by rent controller was challenged by the respondent-landlord by preferring an appeal. the appellate authority by its order dated 2.5.1984 has accepted the aforesaid appeal. it is in these circumstances that the controversy has come to this court at the behest of the petitioner-tenant.2. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant.3. the petitioner-tenant could not dispute the fact that the premises in question was rented out by the respondent-landlord to the controller of printing and stationery, haryana for the purposes of setting up of text books sales centre at narwana. however, the functioning of the text books sales centre was subsequently transferred to the board of school education, haryana whereupon the board of school education, haryana started running the text books sales centre in the premises in question. in order to establish that the premises was actually rented out to the controller of printing and stationary, haryana, transferred exclusive possession of the same to the board of school education, haryana; reliance has been placed on the notice served by the respondent-landlord under section 80 of the code of civil procedure as well as the reply to the same. reply to the aforesaid notice is available on the record of this case as ex.p-1. its perusal clearly depicts that possession of the premises was transferred by the controller of printing and stationery, haryana to the board of school education, haryana. efforts made by the respondent-landlord to recover rent from the controller of printing and stationery, haryana after transfer of possession remained futile. in f'act,the controller of printing and stationery, haryana addressed a communication, which is available on the record of this case as ex.p-2, requiring the board of school education to execute a fresh rent note with the respondent-landlord. there can be no doubt that the aforesaid factual position is sufficient to establish that the premises was originally rented out to the controller of printing and stationery, haryana, which in turn vested it in the board of school education, haryana.4. in order to assail the findings recorded by the appellate authority, jind, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has emphatically staled that there can be no distinction between the controller of printing and stationery, haryana on the one hand and the board of school education, haryana on the other. the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant is, however, misconceived. the controller of printing and stationery, haryana is a department of the state government whereas the board of school education, haryana is a corporate body constituted under a state legislature. the original tenant i.e. the controller of printing and stationery, haryana is a separate and distinct entity from the board of school education, haryana. in view of the reasons recorded above, there can be no escape from the fact that the premises in the first instance was rented out by the respondent-landlord to the controller of printing and stationery, haryana which in turn vested it for exclusive use and occupation with the board of school education, haryana. accordingly, the finding recorded by the appellate authority, jind to the effect that the premises has been sub-let by the original tenant to the board of school education, haryana, cannot be stated to be suffering from any defect.5. for the reasons recorded above, i find no merit in this petition. the same is, thus,dismissed.