SOHAN SINGH AND ORS. Vs. JANAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition, under Sec. 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereafter for short 'the Rent Control Act'), is directed against the judgment of Appellate Authority, Chamba, in CMA No. 45 of 1986, dated 4 -1 -1989, whereby the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller (I), Chamba, in rent case No. 3 of 1986, dated 10 -3 -1988, has been confirmed.

(2.) The eviction relates to a shop in the ground floor of Khasra No. 5625, situated in Ward No. 6, Sapri Bazar, Chamba Town. It was previously owned by Shrimati Champa Devi, who sold it to the landlord through her general power of attorney Shri Dujinder Raj Gupta on 14 -5 -1985. Tenants 1 to 4 were paying Rs. 7/ - per month by way of rent from sometime in the year 1948. According to the landlord, they had sub -let the premises once to Hardit Singh, ' father of tenant -5, after 1972 without the written consent of the landlady -Champa Devi -and after his death to tenant -5, without the written consent of the landlady and the landlord. It has also been stated that tenants 1 to 4 are realising Rs. 50/ - per month by way of rent from tenant -5 and due to the construction of a hearth in the premises without the written consent of the landlord, the utility and the value of the premises has been materially impaired. The claim for arrears after 1972 has also been made.

(3.) Through the joint reply, the tenants have admitted the title of the landlord. They have also admitted the rate of rent but have denied that the premises have been sub -let to tenant -5 from whom Rs. 50/ - by way of rent are being charged. They say that Shrimati Champa, the previous landlady, filed a petition against tenants 1 to 4 on 1 -3 -1974 wherein they had taken the specific plea that Hardit Singh, who was their brother -in -law, was running the business in the capacity of partner and after the death of their father, Kahan Singh, Hardit Singh continued the business till his death on 18 -12 -1981 where after tenant -5 was employed at a monthly salary of Rs. 150/ - but the petition was withdrawn by the landlady. They also say that in case it is proved that the premises were sub -let to Hardit Singh and his son, tenant -5, in that case, eviction order could not be passed since the tenancy was created prior to the commencement of the Rent Control Act. Finally, the claim for arrears of rent has been denied.