KAMLA SHARMA Vs. RADHEY SHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed under sub-section (5) of Section 24 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against judgment and order passed by the Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 47-S/14 of 1996 on May 1, 1998, by which the Appellate Authority reversed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller (2), Shimla, on June 29, 1996, in case No. 49/2 of 1994.

(2.) THE petitioner-landlady filed an application for possession before the Rent Controller against the respondents under Section 14(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. It was averred in the said petition that she owned a shop bearing No. 14/2, ground floor, known as Vinod Niwas, Upper Kaithu, Shimla-3 (suit shop, for short). Respondent No. 1 was her tenant since 1975 on monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. The suit shop was purely non-residential. Respondent No. 1, however, after the commencemnt of the Act, without the written consent of the landlady, sub-let the shop to respondent No. 2, before about one year of the filing of the petition. It was also her case that even though suit shop was non-residential premises, respondent No. 2, without the consent of the petitioner converted the same partially as residential premises. He case further was that respondent No. 1 had permanently shifted to Subathu, District Solan, where he was running a shop in the name and style of "Gupta Pan Shop". She has also alleged that respondent No. 1 was charging higher rent of suit shop from respondent No. 2. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that both the respondents were liable to be evicted.

(3.) ON the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller, framed issues. The parties were then permitted to lead evidence. Appreciating the evidence led by the parties - oral as well as documentary - the Rent Controller held that it was proved by the petitioner that without her consent in writing, respondent No. 1 had sub-let the premises to respondent No. 2; that the petition was not bad for mis-joinder of parties; that the petitioner was not estopped by her acts, deeds and conduct from filing the petition; and on the basis of evidence, it was proved that the case was covered by clause (a) of Section 14(2)(ii) of the Act. The respondents were, therefore, liable to be evicted. The Rent Controller, accordingly, allowed the petition filed by the petitioner-landlady and directed the respondents to hand over vacant possession of the suit shop to the petitioner within a period of sixty days from the date of order.