RASHIK KUMAR Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal point which arises for consideration in the present revision is whether a tenant is liable for eviction on the ground of subletting the premises, when the subletting took place before the commencement of the State Rent Control Legislation and subletting is prohibited under the said Act.

(2.) The relevant facts are few. They are not either in dispute or could not be disputed in the present revision filed under Sec. of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

(3.) SCC Suit No. 7 of 1995 was instituted by three Plaintiffs namely Virendra Kumar, Hirendra Kumar and Nav Ratan Kumar against Rashik Kumar and Pramod Kumar, the Defendants, for ejectment etc. in respect of a shop with open piece of land in front thereof on various grounds such as default in payment of rent, material alterations carried on in the tenanted premises without permission of the landlords and that the tenanted accommodation was sublet by the original tenant Rashik Kumar to Pramod Kumar, Defendant No. 2 without leave of the landlord. It was pleaded that the building in question is a "new construction" within the meaning of the Explanation to Sec. of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, rent and eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).