HARISH KHURANA Vs. PREM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision has been filed by tenant Harish Khurana against landlords Prem Kumar and Satish Kumar and is directed against judgment and decree dated 15.5.1995 passed by J.S.C.C./Second A.D.J. Allahabad in S.C.C. Suit No. 15 of 1988 Prem Kumar and another v. Harish Khurana. Through the said judgment and decree suit of landlords opposite parties was decreed on the ground of sub-letting of the tenanted accommodation which is commercial in nature. Tenancy started with effect from 1.4.1977 through agreement of lease dated 14.5.1977. It was further alleged in the plaint of the suit that the tenant had sub-let the premises to a Company M/s Khurana Auto Mobile Private Limited. It is admitted that the aforesaid Company consists of only tenant Harish Khurana and his wife Shrimati Usha Khurana and is a Private Limited Company. Apart from Harish Khurana and his wife Smt. Usha Khurana there is no other shareholder in the Company.

(2.) THE writ petition is directed against order dated 22.9.1997 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer (I), Allahabad in case No. 10 of 1996 under Section 12/16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 Bisheshwar Dayal Agarwal v. Harish Khurana. The said proceedings had been initiated by respondent No. 1 Bisheshwar Dayal Agarwal, who had prayed for allotment of the accommodation in dispute on the ground that it was deemed vacant as it had been sub-let by Harish Khurana to the aforesaid Company. Through order dated 22.9.1997 Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the accommodation in dispute as vacant on the ground of sub-letting. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer placed reliance upon the judgment of the II Additional District Judge, Allahabad passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 15 of 1988 (challenged in the aforesaid civil revision).

(3.) UNDER Section 20(2)(e) of the Act, subletting is a ground of eviction. The aforesaid sub-section refers to Section 25 which in turn refers to Section 12(1)(b) and 12(2) of the Act. All these provisions are material for the purposes of deciding the present controversy and are extracted below :