OM PARKASH ALIAS CHITRU Vs. BALWANT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALWANT Rai, the erstwhile landlord of the premises in question filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against Om Parkash on three grounds. Firstly, that the premises had been rented out to Om Parkash, however, he had sub-let the same to Ishar Dass, Gian Chand and Shakuntla Devi. Secondly, that the premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. And lastly, that the structural changes effected in the premises by the tenants had materially impaired the value and utility of the property. Since the plea of sub-letting had been raised by the landlord, Balwant Rai, he impleaded Ishar Dass, Gian Chand and Shakuntla Devi as respondents No. 2 to 4 in the ejectment application.

(2.) THE Rent Controller by his order dated 4.11.1982 dismissed the ejectment application. Since the plea of sub-letting is the only plea on the basis of which arguments have been addressed before this Court, it would be pertinent to mention that the Rent Controller while adjudicating upon the plea of the sub-letting had concluded that a genuine partnership existed between Om Parkash and Shakuntla Devi. In this behalf, the Rent Controller had relied on the partnership deed dated 23.10.1978, which was placed on the records of the Rent Controller as Ex. R-1. In view of the aforesaid partnership deed, the Rent Controller held that Om Parkash had not transferred exclusive occupancy rights to respondents No. 2 to 4. In this context, it would also be pertinent to mention that Ishar Dass (respondent No. 2 in the ejectment application) is admittedly the father-in-law of Shakuntla Devi, and Gian Chand (respondent No. 3 in the ejectment application) is admittedly the husband of Shakuntla Devi.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Om Parkash and Shakuntla Devi have preferred the instant petition. The L.Rs. of the landlord Balwant Rai have been impleaded as respondents No. 1 to 5. Ishar Dass, father-in-law of Shakuntla Devi has been impleaded as proforma respondent No. 6 and Gian Chand, husband of Shakuntla Devi has been impleaded as proforma respondent No. 7. Learned counsel for the original tenant Om Parkash and the alleged sub-tenant Shakuntla Devi has emphatically relied upon the judgment rendered by the Rent Controller to substantiate the claim of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also heavily relied upon Ex. R-1 i.e. the partnership deed dated 23.10.1978, executed between Om Parkash and Shakuntla Devi in order to assert that Om Parkash had transferred exclusive tenancy rights to Shakuntla Devi. Relying on various judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court, learned counsel for the petitioners states that creation of a partnership is insufficient to substantiate the plea of sub- letting.