SURINDER LAL SOOD Vs. SADHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioner Rainka Devi, now deceased and represented by her legal representatives, was the owner of certain premises. Those premises were let out to respondent No.1 on monthly rent of Rs.20/-. A petition, under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, was filed by the revision petitioner, hereafter called landlady, seeking ejectment of the tenant on the following grounds:- Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

(2.) THE tenant and respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 contested the petition. The Rent Controller returned the findings that the tenant was in arrears of rent, he had sublet the premises to respondents No. 2, 3 and 4, without the consent of the landlady and had also changed the user of the premises and the vacant land appurtenant thereto.

(3.) THE revision petitioner has alleged that even though the necessary ingredients of the grounds of subletting and change of user had not been pleaded, evidence with regard to the missing ingredients of the aforesaid two grounds had been adduced and, therefore, the Appellate Authority was not right in setting aside the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller on the aforesaid two grounds. It is also the contention of the revision petitioner that the Appellate Authority ought not have passed any order or made the observation that the 'amount due' having been paid, the tenant will not be ejected by executing the order of eviction passed on the ground of non-payment of rent. It is alleged that it was for the Rent Controller to decide whether the amount, deposited by the tenant after the passing of the impugned order, was equal to the 'amount due' within the meaning of proviso third to clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 or was short of that amount.