SUSHMA - MALHOTRA Vs. PREM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the Authorities below.

(2.) THE landlords sought the ejectment of their tenant Mrs. Sushma Malhotra from the premises in dispute which forms the part of basement of shop-cum-office No 123-124, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. The ejectment application was filed on 2-9-1982 The premises were let out to the tenant at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. It was alleged that the tenant has sublet a part of the premises to Ajay Chopra and Mrs. Usha Chopra, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the ejectment application and passed over the exclusive possession and control of the demised premises by carving therein wooden cabins having independent doors under separate lock and key. The ground of non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from 1.4.1981 was also taken. Since the arrears were tendered on the first date of hearing the said ground was no more available.

(3.) THE main controversy between the parties was whether the tenant has sublet the part of the premises without the written permission of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord has succeeded in this case to prove that the tenant parted with the possession of a part of the demised premises and it was for the tenant to prove that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not actually occupy the premises or that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not issue the memo Ex. A2 and that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not obtain the State Sales Tax and the Central Sales Tax number from the concerned departments. Since the tenant has failed to prove these facts, she was liable to be ejected on the ground of subletting. Consequently, eviction order was passed. Appeal was filed by the tenant but surprisingly enough she did not implead the alleged sub-tenants as parties to the appeal when admittedly they were parties in the ejectment application. In appeal the learned appellate authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller on question of subletting and thus maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.