ARSHAD ALI Vs. KAILASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST petitioner Arshad Ali and Saleem in the petition for eviction filed by the respondents, an order of eviction had been passed Under Section 13 (2) (ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, on 2. 2. 1994 on the ground that the property in question has been sub-let by Arshad petitioner to Saleem. The appeal preferred by the petitioner with the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, was dismissed on 11. 10. 1995. Hence, the present revision petition.

(2.) SOME of the relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition for eviction can conveniently be relisted. The respondents alleging themselves as landlord of the shop in question had claimed eviction of the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent, change of user of the property which was stated to have been sublet without the consent of the respondents and that the petitioners have caused damage to the properly in question and impaired its value and utility. These grounds of eviction do not survive nor there was any controversy raised in this Court with respect to the findings of the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority which were against the respondents. The sole surviving ground of eviction which is the subject matter of controversy is that the respondent's case was that the property had been let to petitioner Arshad Ali who sublet it to Saleem for valuable consideration after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to Union Territory of Chandigarh (for short 'the Act' ).

(3.) ISSUES were framed by the learned Rent Controller and parties had led their respective evidence. The learned Rent Controller with respect to the surviving ground of eviction held that it was petitioner Arshad to whom the properly had been let. The rent note was being considered for collateral purpose, because it was not a registered document. It was further concluded that the business of M/s. Saleem Hair Dresser under the name of Arshad Ali is being run in the suit property. The learned Rent Controller recorded that Saleem has claimed that he has taken the property on rent and thus there was a total contradiction in the evidence and the picas which were being offered. It takes not of the fact that Saleem admits that he supervises the shop and its business and that in the earlier suit which was filed by Shakil against petitioner Arshad Ali, he had claimed that he was working in the property in his own right. Accordingly, holding that the said property had been sub-let the order of eviction was passed.