DAVINDER SOOD Vs. KAMLA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 22.12.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority (1), Kangra at Dharamshala in Rent Appeal No. 1-P/XIV-2008.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner-landlord (hereinafter referred to as the "landlord" for convenience sake) filed a petition under section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity sake) to evict the respondents from the rented premises and to handover the vacant possession of rented premises to the landlord. The landlord is owner of shop No. M/195 in Ward No.5 situated in Main Bazaar, Palampur over Khasra No. 670. Shop in question was let out to respondent No.1 in the year 1962. He was carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s Banta General Store. An agreement was entered into between father of the landlord, namely, Sh. Bihari Lal Sood and respondent No.1 for letting out shop in question. Initially, rent was Rs. 33/- per month, which was later on increased to Rs. 1,000/- per year. Suit premises fell into the share of landlord after the death of Sh. Bihari Lal Sood. Respondent has not paid any rent from January, 1999 onwards. Suit premises have been partitioned into two parts and respondents No.2 and 3 have been inducted as sub-tenants by respondent No.1 without the consent of landlord. Respondent No.2, namely, Ajay Sood is running the business under the name and style of "Sood Gift Centre" and in second part, respondent No.3, namely, Raj Kumar Sood is running the business under the name and style of "Banta General Store". A notice was issued to respondent No.1. He refused to accept the same. Tenant has not paid rent since 1.1.1999 till the date of filing of the petition alongwith 10% statutory enhancement. Respondent No.1 has transferred his rights under the lease and has sub-let the entire premises to respondents No.2 and 3 without written consent of the landlord. In these circumstances, eviction of the respondents was sought.

(3.) Respondents contested the petition. According to them, one Prem Chand, on behalf of Bhandari Ram, executed an agreement of rent with respondent No.1 of the suit premises in the year 1961-62. Prem chand had been collecting the rent after executing receipt on behalf of Bhandari Ram till Prem Chand died and thereafter nobody claimed ownership of shop nor anybody came to collect the annual rent and respondents did not know who was owner of the shop in question. According to them, originally rent was Rs. 396/- per annum which enhanced to Rs. 600/- per annum and no one claimed rent after 1998. Issuance of notice is denied. It is also denied that respondent No.1 has sublet the suit premises to respondents No.2 and 3 being his sons.