KAMLESH RANI Vs. SUMITRA DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in revision against the orders of both the Courts below by which she has been asked to vacate the demised premises.

(2.) In short, the landlady-respondent no.1 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 against the petitioner seeking her ejectment from the shop in dispute alleging that it was let out to her by the husband of respondent no.1 vide rent note dated 07.12.1983 @ Rs. 600/- per month besides house tax and the rate of rent at the time of filing of the petition was Rs. 1,370/- per month + Rs. 172.50/- house tax, in all Rs. 1542.50/-. The eviction was sought on the grounds that the petitioner is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.02.2004 till date @ Rs. 1,370/- per month + Rs. 172.50/- house tax and had sublet the demised premises to respondents no.2 and 3 who are in independent control of their business being run under the name and style of M/s Fashion Print.

(3.) In reply, it was admitted by the petitioner that the demised premises was given on rent, vide rent note dated 07.12.1983, but denied the allegation of subletting as she had never parted with possession and works in the demised premises with her two sons, who also helps her in her business. She tendered the entire arrears of rent on the first date of hearing, therefore, the first ground of eviction became redundant. It is alleged that the petitioner had taken the shop in dispute from Ram Lal Sehgal in the year 1983 for her husband Satpal Taneja who had been in Germany for about five years and when he came back and was in search of a job, the shop in dispute was taken on rent for running the business of cloth merchant @ Rs. 600/- per month after executing the rent note on 07.12.1983. Satpal Taneja died on 15.02.2002.