KAMLA Vs. HARYANA KURUKSHETRA GAUSHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Rent Controller, in allowance of a plea for ejectment filed by respondent-landlord, ordered the ejectment of petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on account of non payment of rent and also a finding of unauthorised subletting. In appeal, however, though the finding on point of arrears of rent was reversed, the other part of the finding qua subletting was upheld and, resultantly, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner-tenant has filed the revision to challenge the validity of the finding on point of subletting by the learned Appellate Authority.

(2.) The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the finding recorded is perverse on the face of it as it is based upon the report furnished by the Local Commissioner who found one Tilak Raj to be available on the tenanted premises and he was found in the process of preparing a cup of tea. The Local Commissioner found that Tilak Raj aforementioned had had a bath and had changed his clothes as well before proceeding to prepare tea. It was the precise averment by the respondent-landlord that the petitioner-tenant had sublet the premises to Tilak Raj aforementioned.

(3.) There is no warrant for the expounded proposition that a Local Commissioner can not be appointed to visit the spot and report about who is in possession of the premises in dispute. The finding by the Local Commissioner may, in a given case, affirm the solitary basis of disposal and there might well be circumstances where the Rent Controller may require evidence supportive thereof. Even otherwise, the plea raised is oblivious of the evidence available on record to prove that the defendants-petitioners (who are successor in interest/legal representative of deceased tenant Shadi Lal Sehgal) had themselves given out in lot of documentation that they were residing elsewhere i.e. House No.11, Block No.XIV situated in Mohalla Dogran, Hisar. The following observations made by the learned Appellate Authority in para 17 of the judgment would be completely illustrative of that fact :-