JAI GOPAL Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) ACCORDING to the landlords, Om Parkash Khanna, tenant, took on rent the tabela and the upper flat of both the tabela at a monthly rent of Rs. 70/- with effect from April, 1964. According to them, the tenant had executed the rent note in favour of one Sohan Lal on November 21, 1964. He died on October 6, 1967. By virtue of the will executed by him, the petitioners are the executors of the said will and thus, entitled to realise the rent. The petitioners sought the ejectment of the tenant on the grounds that he was in arrears of rent from March 1, 1965 till the filing of the application and that he had sublet or transferred lessee rights in a portion of the premises to Sat Pal and put him in exclusive possession of a part thereof without obtaining their written consent. In the written statement, it was admitted that the rent note dated November 21, 1964, Exhibit A.2 was executed by the tenant in favour of Sohan Lal, landlord. It was also pleaded that no relationship of landlords and tenant came into existence between the parties. The grounds of ejectment averred by the petitioners were also controverted. It was denied that he had sublet or transferred the lease rights in any portion of the demised premises to Sat Pal Surprisingly enough, Sat Pal. was not made a party to the ejectment application. Rather, he was produced as AW3, by the petitioners. The learned Rent Controller found that the relationship of landlords and tenant existed between the parties. On the question of subletting, it was found that Sat Pal was not a sub-tenant of Om Parkash Khanna, respondent. In fact, he was a tenant on a portion of the building under Sohan Lal and subsequently under Kailash Wati after death of Sohan Lal. Since Sat Pal had already vacated the premises according to the landlords, he was found to be not a necessary party to the ejectment application. Ultimately, the eviction application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order rejecting the eviction application. Dissatisfied with the same, they have filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in this petition.