RAM KISHAN Vs. SHANTI DEVI BIHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision directed against the orders of the Authorities below whereby the tenant was ordered to be ejected on the ground that he has sublet the premises to respondents No. 7 to 9.

(2.) ORIGINALLY, the shop in dispute which is situated in Noharia Bazar, Sirsa, was owned by Hazari Mai who had let out the shop to Ram Kishan (petitioner herein) vide rent note dated 14. 7. 1955. After the death of Hazari Mal, the shop in dispute was inherited by Sita Ram, Nagar Mal and Sagar Mal. Sita Ram and Nagar Mal filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Ram Kishan. Sagar Mal one of the sons of Hazari Mal was impleaded as one of the respondents. Tenant contested the petition and asserted in his written statement that he continued to be in possession of the shop He raised certain other pleas. Sub-tenant did not file any written statement. Tenant, though in his written statement, had taken specific plea that he is in possession of the shop in dispute, yet in evidence, he tried to prove that the sub-tenants are carrying on the business in partnership with him. Rent Controller, after appreciating the entire evidence on the record, concluded that in the shop one of the sub-tenants, namely, Jaswant is carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Kalu Ram Kaj Kumar whereas the tenant himself has shifted to some other premises situated in Chandni chowk Bazar, Sirsa and carrying on the business of sale of cloth under the name and style of M/s. Chawla Cloth House. The Rent Controller also found that the tenant has completely lost control of the premises and, therefore, is liable to be ejected. Tenant preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority who concurred with the reasoning advanced by the Rent Controller and, therefore, dismissed the appeal. Tenant has now preferred the present civil revision challenging the orders of the Authorities below.

(3.) MR. H. L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has not contested the finding with regard to the possession of the sub-tenants over the shop in dispute. He has only contended that the landlord has not proved on the record that the sub-tenant was inducted for valuable consideration. His precise submission was that in order to obtain an order of ejectment, landlord has not only to prove that some other person apart from the tenant was in exclusive possession of the premises let out to him but it was for valuable consideration. In support of this argument, he has relied upon two Supreme Court judgments ; (i) Smt. Krishna Wanti v. Hans Raj ,1975, AIR Rent C. J. 164 and M/s Delhi Stationers and Printers v. Rajendra Kumar JT 1990 (1) 372.