SANT LAL SON OF PYARE LAL SON OF SHRI RAM Vs. AMAR NATH SON OF PYARE LAL SON OF SHRI RAM AND HARDAYAL SON OF SHRI PARMA NAND SON OF SHRI VASDEV ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent -landlord field an ejectment petition against Hardayal allegedly his tenant and Sant Lal allegedly his sub -tenant on 13.9.1980. Primarily dispute between the parties during the course of the present litigation has been in respect of relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties and on the issue of sub -letting. Both these issues were emphatically contested by the parties. The Rent Controller on 20.8.1982 returned a finding on both the issues in favour of the respondent - landlord Amar Nath. It was concluded that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between Amar Nath and Hardayal. The Rent Controller also arrived at the conclusion that the premises had been sub -let by Hardayal to Sant Lal.

(2.) AGGRIEVED with the conclusions drawn by the Rent Controller in the order dated 20.8.1982, the sub -tenant i.e. Sant Lal preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, by an order dated 31.10.1983 concurred with the conclusions drawn by the Rent Controller. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner - sub -tenant Sant Lal in order to challenge the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.

(3.) IN so far as relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned the conclusion drawn by the Courts below has been accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sant Lal. Likewise, the conclusion drawn by the Courts below on the issue of sub -tenancy created in favour of Sant Lal by Hardayal has also been accepted. The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner - sub -tenant Sant Lal is that the petitioner - sub -tenant had moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Appellate Authority seeking to amend the written statement filed by him before the Rent Controller. Through the aforesaid application, the petitioner - sub -tenant wished to introduce the factual position that the shop in question was built on 4.8.1978. By introducing the aforesaid factual position it was proposed to contest the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority to entertain the ejectment application. Learned counsel for the petitioner - sub -tenant has invited the attention of this Court to Section 1(3) of the Rent Act which excludes the applicability of the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 to all buildings, construction of which was completed on or after the commencement of the aforesaid Act, for a period of ten years from the date of its completion.