SUKHDEV KUMAR BALI Vs. SHRIMATI SWATANTAR BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenants' revision petition. The facts giving rise thereto are as under : -Respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed an ejectment application, inter alia on the grounds of (i) material impairment and (ii) sub-letting to-- (a) respondent No. 2 (b) respondent No. 2 and (c) brother-in-law of the tenant. Para 6 of the ejectment application in which the allegations regarding sub-letting are contained is as follows :- -.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. A perusal of the order itself shows that the Rent Controller erred materially in exercise of his jurisdiction in-as-much as he misread the scope of the application for amendment filed by the tenant. The tenant did not want to withdraw his admission regarding respondent Mo. 2 but wanted to take additional plea by way of explanation regarding subletting Barsati portion to his brother-in law and denial of the allegation levelled in the petition. The landlord had not mentioned the name of the brother-in-law of the tenant to whom the premises had been sublet. The reply of the tenant was not specific but general in nature. By taking the additional plea, the tenant wants to specifically deny the allegations regarding the subletting in favour of his brother- in-law. The Rent Controller, it seems, was labouring under the impression that the tenant wanted to withdraw his admission regarding subletting created by him in favour of respondent No. 2, which is incorrect on the face of it as is clear from the perusal of the allegations made in the ejectment petition, reply filed by the tenants and the additional plea which the tenant wants to take by way of amendment to the written statement as reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment

(3.) IT is stated by Mr. Hemant Gupta, counsel for the petitioner that the evidence has already concluded and he would not adduce any more evidence on this point.