SHRIMATI DAYA WATI Vs. DULI CHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unsuccessful landlady's revision petition challenging the orders of the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, as well as the Rent Controller, Ballabgarh whereby her eviction petition was dismissed. The demised premises consists of a room and a tin -shed shown in the plan, Exhibit A -1. Its owner is Parma Nand proforma Respondent. The Petitioner received the said property under mortgage on 14.6.1967 vide deed. Exhibit A -3 dated 1.8.1967, she created tenancy in favour of Duli Chand, tenant -Respondent, at the rate of Rs. 40/ - per mensum. The Petitioner also claimed that the said Duli Chand sublet the demised premises to Suraj Parkash, alleged sub tenant Respondent for a sum of Rs. 42/ per mensem. She claimed eviction of the tenant and the sub -tenant on the basis that the tenant had failed to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 760/ - for a period of 19 months and also for the misconduct of subletting. Duli Chand Respondent did net contest the petition whereas Suraj Parkash, Respondent No 2, did so vigorously. The latter raised the plea that he was a direct tenant of the shop in dispute under the original owner Parma Nand and that under his authority Duli Chand Respondent had been receiving rent from him. He also averred that the mortgage of the demised premises (shop) had been made contumaciously in favour of the Petitioner in order to eject him under that camouflage. It was undenied that the Petitioner was the sister in law of Parma Nand owner. Thus while raising plea of direct tenancy the alleged sub -tenant denied his liability to pay rent and pleaded the petition to be mala fide and collusive. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:

(2.) THE Rent Controller decided issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 against the Petitioner holding that she had failed to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between her and Duli Chand. He also decided issue Nos. 3 and 5 against Suraj Parkash, alleged sub tenant, with the finding that these were not pressed during the arguments. Resultantly ,(sic) the eviction petition was dismissed. On appeal before the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, the Petitioner only confined herself to the question as to whether Duli Chand was her tenant and Suraj Parkash was the subtenant An off shoot of the question which arose automatically was whether Suraj Parkash was a direct tenant under Parma Nand. Thus the main and the ancillary questions which were raised before the Appellate Authority were answered against the Petitioner and it was held that Duli Chand was not the tenant of the Petitioner Now the Petitioner challenges that finding of the Appellate Authority.

(3.) AT the outset, it eserves(sic) mention that the Petitioner practically conceded (sic) before the appellate Authority that if she failed to prove Duli Chand as her tenant, her alleged claim of sub -tenancy against Suraj Parkash would stand demolished. The learned Appellate Authority took the following factors into consideration in returning the finding against the Petitioner: -