GURVINDER PAL SINGH Vs. KARAMJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision petition against the order dated 15.2.2008, passed by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, ordering the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of subletting.

(2.) The case of the respondent-landlord was, that respondent No.1/petitioner was inducted as tenant on a monthly rent of ` 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as per agreement dated 11.4.1994 and was also liable to pay house tax @ 15% w.e.f. 1.1.1999 till date. The petitioner deposited the rent claimed along with house tax, interest and costs, therefore, the ground of non-payment of rent was not pressed. The respondent-landlord succeeded on the ground of subletting, as it was proved, that the petitioner left the possession of the shop and sublet the same to respondent No.2, without the consent of the landlord.

(3.) Respondent No.2 was proved to be in possession of the shop, as the petitioner shifted to shop No.3, Papi Market, Basant Vihar Road, Shankar Garden, near Income Tax Colony, Jalandhar, to run his business in the name and style of Sidana Property Dealers. Respondent No.2 was doing the business of property dealer in the name and style of Friends Property Linkers in the shop in dispute for the last six months. The petition was contested by taking preliminary objections, that the petition was filed with a mala fide intention to harass the petitioner. Respondent-landlord was said to have not come to Court with clean hands and withheld the true facts. Case of the petitioner was, that respondent No.2 was his younger brother. The petition was said to have been filed as a counter-blast to the notice sent by the petitioner on 30.8.2000 asking the landlord to accept the rent and issue receipts. Execution of rent note was admitted though it was pleaded that initially the rate of rent was ` 800/- (Rupees eight hundred only) per month, which was enhanced to ` 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only). The assertion of subletting was denied. It was also denied, that the petitioner had ceased to occupy the shop and shifted to shop No.3, Papi Market, Basant Vihar Road, Shankar Garden, near Income Tax Colony, Jalandhar. The case of the petitioner was, that both the business were run by the petitioner, and respondent No.2 being his real brother was helping him whenever the petitioner was out of station. Both the business were, therefore, claimed to be run by the petitioner as sole proprietor.