AMAR SINGH Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment nad order passed by the Appellate Authority, Bhiwani dated December 10, 1987 vide which the appeal preferred by the landlord Amar Singh was dismissed and the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller on all issues were affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner while impugning the judgment of the Appellate Authority, inter alia, contended that the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence and have fallen in error in not relying upon the correctness of Ex.P-1, a document executed by Shishpal. The Courts ought to have taken into consideration Ex.P-2, an affidavit sworn by Gopal respondent No. 1, but the same has not been correctly appreciated. On the basis of these two documents, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the eviction petition filed by the landlord should have been decreed.

(3.) AMAR Singh landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of (Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondent Gopal on the grounds of non-payment of rent for the period 1.9.1981 to 31.3.1983 at the rate of Rs. 2160/- per annum inclusive of tax, respondent No. 1 alleged to have sub-let the premises to Shishpal, respondent No. 2 without the consent of the petitioner and lastly that the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by closing the same without any reason or cause since 1.2.1983. Upon notice, the respondents filed the written statement denying the averments made in the petition and it was claimed that the premises in question was let out by the petitioner to respondents No. 1 and 2 along with one Shri Ashok Kumar son of Sat Pal on 15.4.1975 on a monthly rent of Rs. 180/- per mensum including all taxes and the rent note was executed. Ashok Kumar was deemed to have retired from partnership on 4.10.1979 and since then, respondents No. 1 and 2 were jointly tenants of the property in question. Allegations with regard to non-payment of rent and impairment of the value of the property as well as sub-letting were specifically denied.