SUNITA RANI Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUNITA Rani petitioner is the landlady qua premises in dispute, which is a Shop. Subhash Chander respondent No. 1 is a tenant under her. She filed on application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging, inter alia, that Subhash Chander sublet the demised premises in favour of his brother Surinder Kumar respondent No. 2 without her written consent, and that the tenant himself had given up possession and started business as a stamp vendor. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 29th September, 1977, reached at the conclusion that subletting of the demised premises by Subhash Chander in favour of Surinder Kumar without the written consent of the petitioner had been proved and consequently allowed the eviction application and ordered the ejectment of the respondents from the demised shop. On appeal filed by Subhash Chander and Surinder Kumar respondents under Section 15 of the Act, the learned, District Judge, Kapurthala (exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under the Act) set aside the finding of the Rent Controller, accepted their appeal and dismissed the eviction application of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court through this revision petition.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that the learned Appellate Authority went wrong is setting aside the well considered finding of the Rent Controller. The following facts stand out clearly which go to prove subletting of the demised premises by Subhash Chander to his brother Surinder Kumar :-

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , this revision petition is allowed, the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated August 26, 1978, is set aside and the order of the Rent Controller dated September 29, 1977, is restored. The tenant-respondent is directed to vacate the shop and to hand over the vacant possession of the same to the petitioner. He is, however, allowed three months' time to comply with this order, on the condition that he shall either pay to the petitioner or deposit in the Court of the Rent Controller the entire amount of arrears of rent including the rent for the period of three months, within one month from today, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to execute the order of ejectment and taken possession of the premises. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision petition allowed.