KRISHAN CHAND & BHAGWAN DAS Vs. GOBIND RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but the same was set aside in appeal. The landlords Krishan Chand and Bhagwan Dass sought the ejectment of their tenant Gobind Ram from the shop in dispute inter alia on the ground that the tenant had sublet the same to his son Ishwar Dass, respondent No. 2. It was pleaded that the shop in dispute is a part of the residential house and was let out to Govind Ram at the rate of Rs. 600/- for one year from May 4, 1966 to May 3, 1967 vide rent note Exhibit D. 1 After the expiry of the said period of one year Gobind Ram continued to be in possession as a statutory tenant. The said Govind Ram tenant has sublet the building in question and transferred its possession to Iswar Dass and he himself has shifted to village Sekha where he was residing. The other ground taken was that Dev Raj son of Krishan Chand landlord is a Law Graduate and wants to set up his office for practising law and as such the building is required for the office. The allegations made in the ejectment application were controverted by the tenants. The learned Rent Controller negatived the plea of the landlords as to the requirement of the building for his son who wanted to start his practice in law. However, on the question of subletting it was found that from the facts and circumstances appearing from the documents relating to the period prior to 1978 showing that respondent No. 2 i. e. and thus it was a clear case of subletting. Consequently, eviction order was passed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the landlords have failed to prove subletting by Gobind Ram in favour of his son Iswar Dass. As a result of this finding ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same landlords have filed this petition in this Court.

(2.) DURING the pendency of this petition the landlord also moved a Civil Miscellaneous application No. 1436-CII of 1985 for bringing on record the subsequent events. Vide orders dated March 20, 1985 this application was directed to be heard with the main case. It is to be dismissed on the short ground that the demised premises is non-residential premises and, therefore, the landlords are not entitled to eject their tenant from the demised premises on the ground of his bonafide requirement of his son.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the relevant record and the case law cited at the bar.