SOHAN LAL Vs. KAMLESH RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but eviction order was passed in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) KAMLESH Rani and Satya Rani, landladies filed the ejectment application against their tenant Sohan Lal in the year 1980, inter alia on the ground that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises and had parted their possession in favour of Sada Nand, petitioner, son of the said Sohan Lal. According to the landladies, the tenant had transferred his tenancy rights in favour of Sada Nand, petitioner, without their written consent. The said Sada Nand was exclusively occupying the demised premises and was carrying on the business therein. Sohan Lal, tenant, had left all his interest in the shop, in dispute, in his favour. In the written statement filed by the tenant, it was denied that the shop was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was pleaded that the tenant was still occupying the shop, in dispute. It was denied that he had transferred his right of tenancy in favour of his son Sada Nand. The tenant himself was running the business in the shop, in dispute. The learned Rent Controller found that the landladies were still receiving the rent from the tenant Sohan Lal and acknowledged him as their tenant and also because Sada Nand was the son of the tenant and both of them are jointly running the business in the shop in dispute. In these circumstances, the question of sub-letting did not arise. The other plea that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation was also negatived. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed vide order dated August 19, 1981. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller on the question of sub-letting, but affirmed the finding as regards the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Consequently, the eviction order was passed.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the landladies-respondents submitted that since Sada Nand the son of the tenant Sohan Lal was in exclusive possession of the premises, it was a clear case of sub-letting. The mere fact that Sada Nand happened to be the son of the tenant, it will not make any difference if the tenant was not in occupation of the demised premises. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Sita Devi v. Chaman Lal, 1985(2) RCR 357; Sunita Rani v. Subhash Chander, 1986(1) RCR 613 and Hans Raj v. Naval Kishore, 1986(2) RCR 617.