BHAGAT MATU RAM Vs. BASTI RAM BHOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is in revision aggrieved the orders passed by the authorities under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") whereby the ejectment sought on the ground of non-payment of rent, change of user, sub-letting and impairing the value and utility of the demised premises and for the reason that the tenant ceased to occupy the premisess for a period of more than four months, was dismissed. The only ground which survives in the present revision petition is sub-letting, the ground on which alone the arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court.

(2.) THE landlord has alleged that the premises in dispute has been sublet by the respondent to Krishan Lal and Kasturi Lal. In the replication, it has been pleaded by the landlord that Krishan Lal is brother and Kasturi Lal is nephew of the respondent-tenant. It is in this context, the allegation of sub-letting by the respondent is required to be examined in the present revision petition.

(3.) BOTH the Authorities below have discussed the entire evidence to return a finding that the landlord has failed to prove parting of exclusive possession of the whole premises or a portion thereof for valuable consideration by Basti Ram in favour in Krishan Lal or Kasturi Lal and consequently dismissed the eviction petition.