KAILASH CHANDER Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful landlord before the High Court is before us in this appeal. The appellant filed a petition seeking eviction of Respondents 1 and 2 on the ground of sub-letting. Respondent 1 is the father of Respondent 2. The Rent Controller, after considering the evidence placed on record in the light of the pleadings of the parties, allowed the petition and directed eviction of Respondents 1 and 2 from the premises in question. The respondents took up the matter in appeal. The Appellate Authority by a detailed and well- considered order, dismissed the appeal concurring with the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by and not satisfied with the order of the Appellate Authority, the respondents filed revision petition before the High Court. The High Court allowed the revision petition reversing the concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority. Hence this appeal by the landlord.

(2.) It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the High Court committed a serious error in upsetting the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the first appellate authority in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short "the Act"). It was further contended that on the facts found and established in the case the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of eviction made. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the High Court having found that the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller as affirmed by the Appellate Authority were correct, but still interfered on the ground that the appellant did not establish exclusive possession of Respondent 2 on the part of the premises and there was no proof of sub-letting by Respondent 1 in favour of Respondent 2.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents made submissions supporting the impugned order. The learned counsel submitted that it was incumbent upon the appellant to establish that Respondent 2 was in the exclusive possession of the portion of the premises and that Respondent 1 was receiving any consideration for parting with the part of the premises. When the appellant failed to establish these essential requirements of sub-letting, the High Court was right and justified in interfering with the order of eviction made against the respondents.