RAJIV MOTOR STORE Vs. RUP LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition for eviction was considered favourably in favour of the landlord on the grounds pleaded by him, namely of subletting and change of user. The subletting, alleged, was that the letting by the father was in favour of the Nanak Chand, he had sublet the premises to M/s. Rajiv Motors carried on through his sons Pawan Kumar. In the appeal filed by the tenant, he contended that there was already a decision rendered at the same ground of subletting filed at the instance of his father and the case was concluded upto High Court where the judgment of the Court below was confirmed in CR No. 381 of 1975 that there was no subletting and that the tenant was Karta of joint family consisting of himself, Pawan Kumar and Rajiv Kumar as proprietors of Rajiv Motors and that the case of subletting made had not been established. The contention was that the decision had become final between the parties and the petitioners as purchasers from the original landlord are bound by the same. A fresh petition on the same ground was not maintainable. The Appellate Court reversed the finding as regards the change of user pleaded by the landlord and held that there was no change of user. However, he confirmed the finding regarding the subletting, rejecting the argument made on behalf of the tenants that the petition was barred by law.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenants would contend that the present landlord's predecessor Ram pal had filed the petition for eviction on the very same ground of subletting which had been rejected by the authorities under the Act. The petition is barred under Section 14 of The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The Section reads thus:

(3.) Before much of the arguments got under way, I asked the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent to state how the petition was maintainable in view of Section 14 and I also asked him further whether he would challenge the finding regarding the change of user. The counsel for the respondents says that he will seek for no modification of the order on finding as regards the change of user and restricted his argument to support the finding regarding the subletting.