KAUSHALYA DEVI Vs. CHAMAN LAL PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Kaushalya Devi, landlady, has filed the present petition against the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below.

(2.) THE petitioner has sought the ejectment of the respondents from the demised premises on the ground of subletting and also that Chaman Lal, respondent No. 1, had constructed a separate independent house and thus, he ceased to be a tenant of the demised premises. The Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been proved on record that respondent No. 1 has constructed his own separate house and has shifted to that house. Thus, he has ceased to be in occupation of the demised premises and the occupation of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is an illegal occupation, as they are sub-tenants of respondent No. 1 without the written consent of the landlord. In support of her contention, she has placed reliance M/s. Girdhari Lal and Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur and others, 1986(2) RCR(Rent) 361 (SC) : AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1499; and M/s Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1998(1) RCR(Rent) 272 (SC) : JT 1998(1) SC 753.