RAJ KUMAR Vs. SHAM SUNDER MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Landlord-Sham Sunder Mehta, had sought ejectment of the tenant interalia on the ground of subletting, material impairment in the value and utility of the premises and requirement of the premises for his own use and necessity. Despite the fact that the landlord had contested the petition only on the ground of personal bonafide necessity while leaving all other grounds of ejectment but had lost at the legal hustings even on that count. The appellate authority reversing the findings of the Rent Controller adjudicated the ground of subletting against the tenant and ordered his eviction as also of the alleged sub-tenant.

(2.) Tenant, Raj Kumar has come up in the revision petition claiming that the alleged sub-tenant is noneelse but his son who is helping him in carrying out the business in the shop in dispute. It is claimed that the appellate authority has gone far and beyond testimony of the witnesses in ordering ejectment of the tenant.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent-landlord on the other hand has urged that subletting is a secret arrangement for which direct and clear evidence is seldom available. It is claimed that notwithstanding the fact that sub-lessee is son of the tenant, he being in exclusive possession of the shop, is none else but sub-lessee making himself liable for ejectment. It is claimed that judgment of the appellate authority cannot be faltered on any count.