Sham tenancy and subletting by oral consent rejected as written documents and statutory eviction grounds prevailed.

A party disputing a written tenancy arrangement as sham must prove that plea with cogent and irresistible evidence; occupants who were not parties to the lease were not barred by Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act from raising that challenge, but the record did not displace the written documents. For eviction, written consent was mandatory for transfer or subletting under the rent law, so oral consent could not defeat the statutory ground, and conversion of a hall into separate cabins supported material impairment of value and utility. The appellate eviction order was therefore restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the lease arrangement between the owners and the tenant was a sham transaction and whether the occupants could rely on oral evidence to displace the written lease and licence documents; (ii) Whether the grounds of eviction for subletting without written consent and for materially impairing the value and utility of the building were made out.

Issue (i): Whether the lease arrangement between the owners and the tenant was a sham transaction and whether the occupants could rely on oral evidence to displace the written lease and licence documents.

Analysis: The occupants were not parties to the lease deed and were therefore not barred by Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 from challenging the outward form of the transaction by pleading that it was sham or fictitious. However, the burden lay on them to establish that case by cogent evidence. The materials on record did not justify drawing an irresistible inference against the written documents. The evidence of the independent witnesses did not support the plea, and the tenant who was the central witness did not enter the witness box. In these circumstances, the revisional court could not reappreciate the evidence and upset the appellate findings.

Conclusion: The arrangement evidenced by the written lease was held to be real and not sham, and the High Court was not justified in overturning the appellate finding.

Issue (ii): Whether the grounds of eviction for subletting without written consent and for materially impairing the value and utility of the building were made out.

Analysis: Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 requires written consent for transfer or subletting, and oral consent could not be substituted for that statutory requirement. The documents also showed that the occupants were placed in cabins under licence arrangements inconsistent with the tenant's case, while the lease itself prohibited subletting. The conversion of a hall into several independent cabins also supported the ground of material impairment under Section 13(2)(iii) of the Act. The High Court erred in holding that these grounds were not established.

Conclusion: The grounds of eviction under Section 13(2)(ii)(a) and Section 13(2)(iii) were proved against the occupants.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's reversal of the appellate decision could not stand, and the eviction order restored by the appellate authority was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A party challenging a written tenancy arrangement as sham must prove that case by strong and irresistible evidence, and where the statute requires written consent for subletting, oral consent cannot defeat the statutory ground of eviction.

---