IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 114 CR-2613-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision.:20.03.2026 Jagjit Singh Ahluwalia (deceased) now represented by Harjit Singh …..Pe77oner Vs. Malava Devi Trust and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate (through Video Conferencing) with Ms. Pawandeep Kaur, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present revision peon 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. 2. The facts are not in dispute. The peoner–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 iniated proceedings under Secon 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restricon 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. 3. 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. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.23 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2613-2026 (O&M) -2- 4. 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. 5. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the peoner 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. 6. This Court, upon consideraon of the submissions and perusal of the record, finds no merit in the contenon. 7. It is by now well se=led that the mere execuon of a partnership deed does not by itself rule out sub-le;ng. The Court is required to examine the real nature of the transacon and is not bound by its nomenclature. If the partnership is found to be a mere camouflage or a device to conceal parng with possession, the Court would be jusfied 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. 8. In the present case, both the Courts below have concurrently recorded findings, based on cogent evidence, that the peoner had completely parted with possession and control of the demised premises in favour of respondent No.2. The tesmony of RW-1 Harjit Singh Ahluwalia, a=orney of the peoner, and RW-2 Jagjit Singh himself, clearly reveals that no capital was contributed by the peoner towards the alleged partnership, no accounts were ever se=led upon its dissoluon, and the enre 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 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.23 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2613-2026 (O&M) -3- the premises, was opening and closing the establishment, and was running the business independently since May 2009. 9. 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 pares. 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 consideraon for use of the premises further forfies the conclusion that the arrangement was in the nature of sub-le;ng. 10. The contenon sought to be raised on the basis of subsequent disputes between the pares, 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. 11. Under Secon 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 evicon. Admi=edly, no such consent exists in the present case. 12. It is also pernent to note that the findings recorded by the Courts below are pure findings of fact based on appreciaon of evidence. The scope of interference in revisional jurisdicon 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. 13. On the contrary, the reasoning recorded by the learned Appellate Authority, parcularly 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. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.23 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2613-2026 (O&M) -4- 14. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plea of partnership set up by the peoner 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. 15. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision peon, the same is dismissed. 16. All pending miscellaneous applicaons, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE March 20, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.23 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document