SHRIMATI SHANTI DEVI Vs. SH. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlady Shrimati Shanti Devi sought the ejectment of the tenant OM Prakash from the shop, in dispute, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent and subletting to Sajjan Kumar and M/s Prehlad Rai Raj Kumar, respondents Nos. 2 and 3. According to the landlady, the shop, in dispute was let out to Om Parkash in the year 1957 on a monthly rent of Rs. 28/- for selling utensils. Later on, in the year 1958, the rent of Rs. 455/- per annum. The tenant was doing his business therein in the name and style of M/s Mahavir Parsad Bishanu Datt and was the sole proprietor thereof. Since the husband of the landlady was living outside on account of his service, on his retirement when he came back to Hissar, he found that the premises were in occupation of Sujjan Kumar and M/s Prehald Rai Raj Kumar and that the tenant Om Parkash was no more in occupation of the premises. The ejectment application was filed on March 5, 1973. Om Parkash, tenant, was proceeded ex parte. The ejectment application was contented by Sajjan Kumar and M/s Prehald Rai Raj Kumar. It was pleaded by them that though the premises were let out to Om Parkash initially, but later on, he left them and that the same were let out to them on October 1, 1958. Since then, they were in occupation of the same as tenants directly under the landlady. Arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing by the alleged subtenants, but were not accepted by the landlady. The main question before the Rent Controller was as to the whether respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were the direct tenants under the landlady or not. The Rent Controller (who was the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hissar, then), came to the conclusion that the landlady had failed to prove the allegation of subletting. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority, (the Controller, Hissar, at that time), affirmed the said finding of the Rent Collector. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady filed the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. It was later on transferred to this Court in view of the amendment to the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 by the Haryana Act No. 16 of 1978.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the whole approach of the authorities below was wrong, illegal and misconceived.