PEHLAD RAI Vs. RAJ KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners have filed this revision petition against the order of the appellate authority whereby the appeal filed by them against the order of Rent Controller dated 21. 3. 1989 ordering eviction has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, Raj Kumar and another-respondents sought eviction of the present petitioner from the disputed premises on the ground : (i) respondent No. 1 has not paid the arrears of rent from 1. 12. 1982 ; (ii) respondent No. 2 without the consent of the petitioner has sublet the disputed shop to the respondent No. 2 for a valuable consideration. It was further stated that the shop is now in exclusive possession and control of respondent No. 2 who is doing his business of selling vegetables.

(3.) NOTICE of the petition was given to the respondents who put in appearance, filed written statement and controverted various averments made in the petition. It was admitted that respondent No. 1 is a tenant under the petitioners The arrears of rent were tendered and accepted by the petitioners and so this ground of eviction was given up. Respondents specifically denied that respondent No. 1 has sublet the shop in dispute to respondent No. 2, his brother. On the contrary, it was asserted that respondent No. 1 is in exclusive control and possession of the disputed shop and they are doing the joint business in the disputed property.