SHER SINGH Vs. CHANDU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed by Sher Singh, tenant, against judgment dated 31.1.1986 passed by the Appellate Authority, Hisar, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the judgment dated 31.8.1985 passed by the Rent Controller, Hisar, vide which the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were ordered to be ejected from the demised premises, was maintained.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that Chandu Lal, respondent No. 1, is the landlord of the demised premises. He had let out the said premises to the petitioner, Sher Singh at a monthly rent of Rs. 35/- plus house tax. However, the petitioner had further sublet the demised premises to respondent No. 2, Shiv Kumar, without the consent of the landlord and has not paid the arrears of rent since 15.10.1980. It was also alleged that respondent No. 2 had been indulging the gambling and was a source of nuisance to the neighbors and further had impaired the value of utility of the demised premises. With these allegations, petition for ejectment was filed. The petitioner contested the petition and filed written reply dated 17.3.1982. He stated that he and respondent No. 2, Shiv Kumar, were father and son and were member of joint Hindu family and they had been running the shop from the very beginning and there was no question that he had sublet the demised premises to respondent No. 2, Shiv Kumar. He further stated that he had gone several times to respondent No. 1 to hand over the rent besides house tax but the same had not been accepted. He next denied that respondent No. 2 was indulging in gambling or was source of nuisance to the neighbours. Respondent No. 1 filed rejoinder in which he re-affirmed his claim as stated in the petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence, the Rent Controller, vide his order dated 31.8.1985, accepted the petition and passed the order of ejectment in favour of respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and directed them to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises on or before 31.10.1985, by holding under Issue Nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were not members of joint Hindu family and in fact, the petitioner had sublet the demised premises to respondent No. 2 and further respondent No. 2 was indulging in gambling in the demised premises as he was convicted under Section 13-A of the Gambling Act by the then Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar, vide her judgment dated 4.8.1983. Further Ex. P4 is copy of the site plan of that case, which shows that respondent No. 2 was indulging in gambling adjacent to the shop in dispute. However, it was held that there is no evidence or proof that the value or the utility of the demised premises had been impaired by respondent No. 2. Consequently, Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of respondent No. 1 and Issue No. 3 was decided against respondent No. 1. Under Issue No. 4, it was held that petition is not bad for want of service of noticed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.