BHAGWAN DASS Vs. SHAM SUNDER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Karnal, dated 16th November, 1978, whereby the order of the Rent Controller has been set aside and the order of ejectment has been passed.

(2.) The building in question is a shop (non-residential) situated within the Municipal limits of Kaithal Municipality. Sham Sunder and Ved Parkash respondents are the co-owners and the landlords of the same. They filed the application for ejectment under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of unauthorised subletting by Lekh Raj to Bhagwan Dass petitioner. It is the common case of the parties that the shop was taken on rent by the partnership firm known as M/s. Aarya Mitta Mal Bhagwan Dass, Kaithal, through one of its partners Lekh Raj for the use and occupation by that partnership firm the other partners being Aarya Mitta Mal and Bhagan Dass (non-petitioner). The said partnership firm stood dissolved on 11th May, 1974. Since then Bhagwan Dass one of the partners only is carrying on the business in the said premises under the name and style of M/s. Mahla Ram Bhagwan Dass. Bhagwant Dass is the sole owner of the firm, Mahla Ram father of Bhagwan Dass having died long ago. On the basis of these facts, the learned Rent Controller has held that this would not amount to subletting in favour of Bhagwan Dass and, consequently, dismissed the application for ejectment. In an appeal the learned Appellate Authority has reversed that findings on the basis of a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Niranjan Kumar and others v. Dhayan Singh and another, 1976 AIR(SC) 2400 . It may be mentioned here that the learned Rent Controller relied upon another Supreme Court authority reported as Murlli Dhar v. Chuni Lal and others, 1969 RCR(Rent) 563 . Though the learned appellate Authority has discussed both these judgments in its order, but the conclusion arrived at is patently illegal and is not warranted from the facts stated therein. In Niranjan Kumar and others's case , the premises were rented out to one Sat Parkash alone. He in order to run his business joined certain other persons as partners. Subsequently, he walked out of the business and allowed other partners of continue the same. Under these circumstances, it was held that it amounted to subletting and thus the tenant was held liable to ejectment under the Act. Thus the facts of the cases have on analogy with the facts of the present case which is fully covered by the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Murli Dhar's case . It has been held therein as under :-

(3.) In this view of the matter, the present petition is accepted with costs. The order of the Appellate authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application is restored.