RAJKUMAR ANEJA Vs. GURDAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS No. 1, 2 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as the "landlords") had filed eviction petition against respondent No. 6 (original respondent No. 1 before the Rent Controller), the present petitioners and three others seeking their eviction. The contention of the landlords is that the petitioners and respondent No. 6 have materially impaired the value and utility of the premises; that they are in arrears of rent; that they have changed the user of the premises; and that respondent No. 6 has sub-let the premises to the petitioners. The trial Court dismissed the rent petition. However, it was allowed by the lower Appellate Court. Respondent No. 6 has admitted the contention made in the rent petition. However, according to his written statement, the sub-letting and the change of user in the premises are made with oral consent of the landlords.

(2.) THE present petitioners had in their initial written statement accepted the position that they had taken the premises from respondent No. 6. Their contention in the original written statement is that respondent No. 6 had advertised in the press for the availability of the cabins on the first floor of the premises and that they have been inducted as licensee by him. Subsequently, they filed application for amendment of the written statement and changed their sand that respondent No. 6 was an agent of the landlords and they were inducted as tenants by him. The allegation of sub-letting was denied. The amendment which they sought was rejected by the Rent Controller. However, the petitioners succeeded in the revision petition filed by them. It was C.R. No. 1414 of 1995. By the order in C.M. this Court allowed the amendment. However, it was without going into the merit of the controversy.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and respondent No. 6 in person. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the lower Appellate Court has erred in allowing the eviction petition and according to them the admissions made in the written statement stood explained and, therefore, could not be held to be conclusive against them.