PARVINDER SINGH Vs. RENU GAUTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/landlord laying challenge to the order dated September 29, 1994 passed by the Rent Controller, Shimla whereby the petition filed by him on the ground of non-payment of rent was allowed and in view of his act and conduct in refusing to accept the rent, he was not entitled to interest and costs. The tenants/respondent were, however, granted a statutory period of 30 days to deposit this amount and on such deposit being made, the ground shall not be available for seeking eviction of the respondents/tenants. The second ground of sub-letting was held not to have been proved by the landlord/petitioner.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved against the order passed by the Rent Controller, the landlord filed an appeal under Section 24 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 which stands dismissed by the appellate authority and the order passed by the Rent Controller stands affirmed. Parties, hereinafter in this judgment, shall be referred to as 'landlord' and 'tenants'.

(3.) MR . Sood further proceeds to contend that the landlord in the present case has successfully proved subletting by the tenants in favour of respondent No. 3 who is in exclusive possession of the shop and is running business there and the Courts have gone wrong in deciding the issue of subletting against the landlord.