BHAGWAT SARUP ALIAS BHAGAT RAM Vs. SALIG RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed by landlord-petitioner under sub-section 6 of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 is directed against the judgment dated 1.12.1984 passed by the Appellate Authority, Karnal reversing the findings of facts recorded by the Rent Controller, Karnal. The Rent Controller in his order dated 14.6.1983 came to the conclusion that the tenant-respondent No. 1 had not sub-let the premises to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and, therefore, the application was dismissed on that score. Further on the ground of non-payment of rent from 1.5.1978 to 31.4.1981 the ejectment of the tenant-respondents was ordered. However, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding holding that the tenant-respondents were not in arrears of rent as it is proved on record that the whole payment of rent has been made and the landlord-petitioner has failed to prove that the rent was due to him. The findings of facts on the question of sub-letting were affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord- petitioner has filed the instant petition.

(2.) ON the basis of rent note dated 30.12.1969 and according to the averments made in the ejectment petition the demised premises were rented out to tenant-respondent No. 1 Salig Ram (who has died during the pendency of the instant petition) @ Rs. 35/- p.m. It has further been averred in the ejectment petition that Salig Ram, tenant-respondent No. 1 sublet the same to one Om Parkash who further rented out the aforesaid premises to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In the written statement filed by tenant-respondent No. 1 Salig Ram, the fact of tenancy has been admitted. However, in the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 the claim of the landlord- petitioner has been resisted asserting that respondent No. 3 is a direct tenant under the landlord-petitioner. The landlord-petitioner also filed replication. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(3.) THE learned Appellate Authority, Karnal reversed the findings even with regard to arrears of rent and allowed the appeal filed by the tenant- respondents 3 and 4 holding that they were not liable to be ejected on the ground that they were in arrears of rent. However, the appeal filed by the landlord-petitioner was dismissed. The views of the Appellate Authority with regard to arrears of rent are as under :-