UMRAO Vs. MINU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Umrao petitioner has filed the present revision petition directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Narnaul, dated 11-11-1992 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Narnaul, dated 2-5-1998. The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority.

(2.) The relevant facts are that petitioner is a tenant in the shop in question. The respondents who are landlords filed an eviction petition. The ground of eviction relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition and that found favour with the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority is that, as per landlords, the petitioner who is a tenant has sublet the property to Raghbir respondent (now dead and represented by respondents No. 3 to 5 in the revision petition). Raghbir was the son of the petitioner. The eviction petition was contested. It was denied that the property in question has been sublet or that the possession has been delivered to Raghbir, his son. Petitioner's claim was that his son was not carrying on any business of cycle repairing in the suit premises.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and with respect to the said controversy concluded that it was the son of the petitioner who was carrying on the business in the property in question. The report of the Local Commissioner was relied upon that it was the son of the petitioner who was found working in the suit premises. The learned Rent Controller held that when a third person is in possession and both the petitioner and his son were having separate mess, it is a case of subletting. An order of eviction was passed.