SURINDER KUMAR Vs. DHARAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P.Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Shimla passed in CMP No. 56-S/14 of 1998 decided on 22.2.2001 whereby the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord on the ground that the tenant Surinder Kumar Sood has sublet the premises in question in favour of his younger brother Rajinder Kumar Sood, petitioner No.2.

(2.) THE landlord and petitioner No.1 entered into a written agreement on 16.5.1985 whereby the landlord rented out the premises in question to Shri Surinder Kumar Sharma (tenant) at a rental of Rs.300/- per month. The landlord on 5.10.1994 filed an eviction petition against the tenant on the ground that the tenant Surinder Kumar Sood had sublet the entire premises to his younger brother Rajinder Kumar Sood, petitioner No.2 without the consent of the landlord. Two other grounds were also taken with regard to impairing the value of the building and that the building had been damaged and was required by the landlord for reconstruction and bonafide use of the premises.

(3.) THE main thrust of Shri Ajay Kumar is that the tenancy though created in the name of Surinder Kumar Sood was for the benefit of the entire family; that Shri Rajinider Kumar Sood used to live jointly with his brother and after his marriage also he and his family live in a joint family; that the alleged sub-tenant Rajinder Kumar Sood has been paying the rent to the landlord on behalf of his brother Surinder Kumar Sood to the landlord and that no consideration between the tenant and sub tenant has been proved. Shri Ajay Kumar has also urged that the Appellate Authority has not taken into consideration the evidence led before it.