PUSHAP LATA SHARMA Vs. RAMESH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of law which has been raised at several occasions before various Courts including the Apex Court has been raised before me.

(2.) THE petitioners, Smt. Savitri Devi (since deceased) and Yash Pal have challenged an order of eviction dated August 24, 1994, passed by the Rent Controller, Una, in R.R.A. No. 9 of 1991, recording a finding that the former (tenant), after the commencement of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') had sub-let the suit premises without the written consent of the landlady to the latter (sub-tenant) and was, therefore, liable to be evicted. The said order was confirmed by the appellate authority, Una, on January 9, 1998 in C.M.A. No. 10 of 1994.

(3.) THE petition was contested by the respondents, inter alia, contending that there was no subletting by respondent No. 1 Smt. Savitri Devi to respondent No. 2 Yash Pal. According to Smt. Savitri Devi, her husband Kishan Chand was the tenant of the suit premises and Yash Pal was in his employment. After the death of her husband in 1989, Yash Pal continued to remain in employment of respondent No. 1 and thus, he was her servant and an employee. Yash Pal, therefore, could not be termed as sub-tenant and the petitioner had no right to claim possession on the ground of sub-letting. It was also contested that the petitioner was not entitled to possession on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was denied that respondent No. 1 was in arrears of rent since November, 1998. As none of the grounds was in existence, the petition was liable to be dismissed.