SEWA SAMITI Vs. BIHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the landlord against the judgment dated 27.11.1980, passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal, filed by the tenants, was accepted, the order of ejectment, passed by the Rent Controller, was set aside and the ejectment petition, filed by the landlord, was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the present petitioner, M/s. Sewa Samiti, Sirsa, had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, for the eviction of the respondents from the shop in question, on the ground that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were inducted as tenants in Shop Nos. 14 and 15, owned by the petitioner, on a monthly rent of Rs. 45/- in respect of each shop and that the respondents were liable to be evicted from the shop in question on the ground that the respondents had not paid the rent for the period from 1.11.1976 and that they were also liable to pay house tax. It was further alleged that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, without any written consent of the landlord had sublet the shop in question to respondent No. 3, namely Ghisa Ram. It was accordingly prayed that an order of eviction be passed against the respondents from shop No. 15. In the written statement, filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely Bihari Lal and Kishan Lal Sharma, the allegations of sub-letting of the shop in question by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of respondent No. 3, had not been denied. On the other hand, it was alleged that the shop in question was being used by the answering respondents as godown from the very beginning and it was not correct to say that the said shop was lying closed for the last two years. Subsequently, during the pendency of the rent petition, respondent No. 1 and 2 namely Bihari Lal and Kishan Lal, filed an application for amendment of the written statement so as to take up the plea that the shop in question was constructed after 1972 and as such, it was not a new construction and that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the ejectment petition. It was accordingly prayed that a preliminary objection may be allowed to be taken in this regard. The learned Rent Controller allowed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to amend the written statement. The amended written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was taken on the record. In the amended written statement, an additional line was added to the effect that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had never given the possession of the said shop to respondent No. 3. This amendment was made by these respondents in the amended written statement without any authority of law inasmuch as in the original written statement, this plea was not taken and while filing the application for amendment of the written statement, no prayer was made to allow them to amend the written statement to take up this plea as well. On the other hand, only preliminary objection was sought to be taken regarding the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller had framed an issue as to whether respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had sub-let the premises in dispute in favour of the respondent No. 3 without the written consent of landlord. After recording the evidence and hearing both the sides, the learned Rent Controller held that sub-letting of the shop in question by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of respondent No. 3, was proved on the record. Accordingly, on the ground of sub-letting, the order of ejectment was passed by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the same, Bihari Lal and Kishan Lal, tenants, filed appeal before the Appellate Authority, impleading M/s Sewa Samiti, landlord as respondent No. 1 and Ghisa Ram, alleged sub- tenant, as respondent No. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for amendment of the ejectment petition, was filed on behalf of the landlord, M/s Sewa Samiti, with regard to the description of the shop regarding which the ejectment was sought. The said application was contested by the tenants namely Bihari Lal and Kishan Lal. After hearing both the sides, the Appellate Authority allowed the landlord to amend the petition. The amended ejectment petition was filed. Thereupon, Bihari Lal and Kishan Lal again filed written statement to the amended petition. In the said written statement, the plea, which was earlier taken by the tenants in the first written statement, was taken inasmuch as there was no denial about the sub-letting by the tenants, namely Bihari Lal and Kishan Lal in favour of the Ghisa Ram (the plea which was at one stage, taken by them in the amended written statement, though without any permission from the Rent Controller).

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.