ASHA GUPTA Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision is filed by the Petitioner-landlady against the judgment and order passed by Rent Controller (I), Sirmaur District at Nahan on April 29, 1996 in Rent Petition No. 18/2 of 1992 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan on August 18, 1997 in Rent Appeal No. 4-N of 1996.

(2.) A Rent Petition was filed by the Petitioner-landlady against the Respondent-tenant in the Court of Rent Controller (I), Sirmaur District at Nahan u/s 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The case of the Petitioner was that she was the owner of a non-residential shop bearing Municipal No. 3528, situated at Ward No. 13 of Nahan town, which was let out to the tenant in September, 1985 for a monthly rent of Rs. 550. The Respondent was running a dairy products business in the suit shop. He was, however, habitual defaulter in payment of rent. He was in arrears of rent since April, 1990. Even at earlier occasion, he paid rent only after an order of eviction was passed by Court against him. According to the Petitioner the Respondent had not paid rent and he was, therefore, liable to be evicted. Moreover, without the prior permission of the landlady, the Respondent-tenant had sub-let the suit shop by inducting his brother-in-law Harbans Singh, as a sub-tenant. On that ground also, he was liable to eviction. A prayer was, therefore, made by the Petitioner to the Rent Controller to pass an order of ejectment against the Respondent by awarding possession of the suit shop to her.

(3.) The Respondent contested the petition, inter alia, contending that the Petitioner was not entitled to possession of the suit shop. Though the Respondent was ready and willing to pay rent and also made an offer to pay rent, the Petitioner refused to accept it. The Respondent was, therefore, not liable to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent. Regarding sub-letting, the Respondent contended that he never left Nahan town nor did he part with exclusive possession in favour of Harbans Singh. He stated that Harbans Singh was none else than his brother-in-law, who was in good terms with him and was carrying on his independent business of carriage and sale of milk and suit shop was never sub-let to him. Even on that allegation, therefore, the Petitioner was not entitled to possession.