SANTOSH RANI Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition had been filed by Smt. Santosh Rani and another (hereinafter described as 'the petitioners') directed against the judgment of learned Appellate Authority, Sirsa dated 10.12.1982. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. Instead the petition for eviction was allowed and the petitioner was granted two months' time to vacate the premises.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the respondents had preferred a petition for eviction with respect to the suit premises. It was asserted that the suit property had been let to Ravinder Kumar at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. The grounds of eviction pressed were that the tenant has failed to pay arrears of rent from 1.7.1977 and that the said tenant has sublet the presmies to Krishan Lal and Santosh Rani (petitioners in the present revision petition). In the reply filed, the alleged tenant Ravinder Kumar stated that he was a tenant in the suit premises till 30.6.1977 at a monthly rent of Rs. 325/-. Thereafter the possession was handed over by him to the landlord. The shop was pleaded to have thereafter let to Kishan Lal. The petitioners in their reply alleged that they were the tenants in the property at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- from 1.4.1977. There was a partnership styled as M/s Om Traders. Ravinder Kumar was one of the partners. After he and her mother retired from the partnership, the petitioners continued the partnership business.

(3.) THE first and foremost question that comes up for consideration is as to whether the petitioners could also be taken to be the tenants or it was Ravinder Kumar who had taken the property on rent ?