CONTROLLER OF PRINTING AND STATIONERY Vs. YASH PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-landlord filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 claiming ejectment of the petitioner on account of sub-letting. It was the claim of the respondent-landlord that the premises in question had been let out to the Controller of Printing and Stationery, Haryana whereas it is now in exclusive possession and occupation of the Board of School Education, Haryana. The Rent Controller did not accept the plea raised by the respondent-landlord and accordingly, dismissed the ejectment petition on 13.1.1983. The order passed by the Rent Controller was challenged by the respondent-landlord by preferring an appeal. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 2.5.1984 has accepted the aforesaid appeal. It is in these circumstances that the controversy has come to this Court at the behest of the petitioner-tenant.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant.

(3.) IN order to assail the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority, Jind, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has emphatically stated that there can be no distinction between the Controller of Printing and Stationery, Haryana on the one hand and the Board of School Education, Haryana on the other. The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner- tenant is, however, misconceived. The Controller of Printing and Stationery, Haryana is a department of the State Government whereas the Board of School Education, Haryana is a corporate body constituted under a State Legislature. The original tenant i.e. the Controller of Printing and Stationery, Haryana is a separate and distinct entity from the Board of School Education, Haryana. In view of the reasons recorded above, there can be no escape from the fact that the premises in the first instance was rented out by the respondent-landlord to the Controller of Printing and Stationery, Haryana, which in turn vested it for exclusive use and occupation with the Board of School Education, Haryana. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority, Jind to the effect that the premises has been sub-let by the original tenant to the Board of School Education, Haryana, cannot be stated to be suffering from any defect.