RAM CHANDER Vs. AMAR DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed on behalf of the tenant petitioner against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby his appeal has been dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment has been maintained.

(2.) Ram Chander tenant was occupying two shops bearing Nos. 422 and 423, Jagadhri Road, Yamunangar as tenant under Amar Devi and others. Alleging that the tenant has sub-let shop No. 422 of Banarsi Lal and shop No. 423 to Mehar Chand and Madan Lal without their written consent and permission and therefore, they are liable to ejectment on the ground of sub-letting under the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act). In the application for ejectment, non-payment of rent was also pleaded. Since the same was paid on the first date of hearing, the only ground on which the ejectment has been ordered is sub-letting by the tenant without the written permission of the landlords. The learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have come to concurrent finding, after going through the evidence on the record that the tenant Ram Chander has sub-let the premises as alleged by the landlords without their written consent. Feeling aggrieved against this finding, the tenant petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for tenant petitioner has vehemently argued that both the Authorities under the Act have acted illegally as the finding arrived at by them is based on inadmissible evidence, of course, both the Authorities while arriving at the said finding of sub-letting have also relied upon the plaint Ex. A-2 filed by Banarsi Lal sub-tenant against. Ram Chander tenant in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from ejecting the plaintiff with force and in an unlawful manner. It has been stated therein that the defendant Ram Chander has sub-let shop No. 422 to the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 120 and the plaintiff is carrying on business under the style and name of Messrs Janta. Its Candy in that shop since November, 1969: Reliance has been placed on an affidavit of Banarsi Lal, Ex A. 3 filed in that very suit in support of an application for temporary injunction in which similar statement has also been made. There is also a report of the Local Commissioner filed in that suit dated 6th of July, 1970, Ex. A-1. Apart from that it has also been observed by the Appellate Authority that the tenant ought to have adduced evidence of alleged partnership between himself and the alleged sub-tenant. As regards the said documents, it has been observed that "as already observed, the admissions made by respondent No. 4 in the plaint and affidavit of suit No. 381 instituted on 8.7.1970 when read along with the report dated 6.7.1970 of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court therein clinches the issue and clearly proves that respondent No. 1 had sub-let the tenancy premises to respondents 2 to 4." Moreover, the learned Appellate Authority has also observed, "that the licence contemplated in Ex. R. 2 pertained to keeping of machinery on payment of demurrage at the rate of Rs. 5 per day till Rs. 800 due to respondent No. 2 from respondent No 4 came to be paid and not to the running office candy business in shop No. 422 by respondent No. 4 to the exclusion of respondent No. 1. The report Ex. A-1 not only records the presence of respondent No. 4 on the tenancy premises but also states that icecandy business was also being done therein 6.7.1970 even after the dissolution of alleged partnership on 7.12.1969."