RAM KISHAN Vs. GANESH DUTT JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision directed against the order of the appellate Authority whereby the appeal of the tenant was allowed and the order of the Rent Controller was set aside and as a consequence there of, the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed Petitioner, Ram Kishan, and his wife, Kuldeep Kaur, are the owners of the house in dispute. As per the case of the petitioner, the ground floor of House No. 138, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh, was let out by Ram Kishan, petitioner, to respondent No. 1, Ganesh Dutt Jindal. on a rent of Rs 300/- per month. In the ejectment petition, it was claimed that respondent No. 1, Ganesh Dutt Jindal, sub-let the premises to respondent No. 2 namely Narinder Nath, without the written consent of the petitioners. It was also stated that respondent No. 1 transferred his right in the half portion of the building, consisting of two rooms, store, bathroom and the Lavatory adjoining House No 139, without the written consent of the petitioners and left vacant the other half portion on 31. 5. 1979, without informing the petitioners. The petitioners came to know about this only on 6. 6. 1979, when Ram Kishan came to collect the rent. Petitioner No. 1 took possession of the abondoned vacant portion, whereas respondent No. 2 refused to vacate the premises, and therefore, petition for ejectment was filed on 13. 6. 1979.

(2.) THE respondents filed separate written statements. Respondent No. 1 in his statement submitted that he was a tenant under the petitioners. He also stated that respondent No. 2 was closely related to him therefore, he allowed respondent No. 2 to stay with him on payment of proportionate rent. He also stated that he vacated the portion in his possession with the due permission of the petitioners and respondent No. 2 remained in possession of the other portion. Respondent No. 2 in his written statement admitted that respondent No. 1 is closely related to him, but he and respondent No. 1 are co-tenants and the rent was being paid jointly at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month, i. e. Rs. 150/- by each of the respondents. He therefore, denied that respondent No 1 transferred his tenancy rights to him.

(3.) THE Rent Controller on the appreciation of evidence on record, ordered the ejectment of the respondents on the ground of subletting. On an appeal filed by respondent No. 2, order of the Rent Controller was set aside by the appellate Authority, and as a consequence thereof ejectment petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed This order is now being impugned by the petitioners in the present revision petition.