OM PARKASH Vs. KAILASH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Om Parkash, hereinafter described as "the petitioner" directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Sirsa, dated 25-5-1993 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Sirsa dated 7-10-1996. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the respondent-landlord Kailash Chander had filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short "the Act") alleging that the petitioner is a tenant in the suit premises and respondent No. 2, son of the petitioner, is a sub-tenant therein. It was asserted that the property as mentioned above has been sublet without the consent of the respond ent-landlord. That is the sole ground of eviction surviving for purposes of the present revision petition. By way of elucidation, it was added that respondent No. 2 had set up his independent office of Unit Trust of India, being its Chief Representative at Sirsa. He solicits business from the premises in question which is a shop. The said shop has been divided into two parts. Thus, it was reiterated that the property as such has been sublet.

(3.) In the written statement filed, the petitioner contested the eviction petition. It was denied that the property as such has been sublet or exclusive possession has been given to respondent No. 2.