AMAR NATH Vs. VIDYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Revision Petition has been filed under Section 24 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order passed by the Appellate Authority (I), Shimla, dated 8.8.1995 in C.M.A. No. 63-S/14 of 1993, whereunder the Appellate Authority has set aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Theog, dated 24,5.1993 in Case No. 5/II of 1991, allowing the petition filed under Section 14 of the Act on the ground of unauthorised sub-letting of the premises in question. The fact that late Hari Krishan was the tenant of the premises in question from 27.5.1982 and that he was personally carrying on tailoring job in the premises till his death in March 1991, is not in dispute. There is also no dispute about the rate of rent being Rs. 480 per annum and the fact that the arrears of rent claimed in the petition have been already remitted in the Court and the only question that remained for inquiry and adjudication by the Rent Controller was as to the claim of the landlord about the unauthorised sub-letting of the rented premises. The landlord/Petitioner besides examining himself as P.W. 1, had P.Ws. 2 and 3 examined, to substantiate his claim about the alleged sub-letting. The Respondents, who are the wife and two sons of late Hari Krishan, on their side got examined R.W. 1 the wife, R.W. 2, whose name also happened to be Hari Krishan and one Bani Ram as R.W. 3 in support of the stand of the Respondents.

(2.) After considering the materials on record, the learned Rent Controller held that since the children of Hari Krishan are in Government service outside Theog and no witness has spoken that the wife of Sri late Hari Krishan works in the shop and thereby runs the same, the parting of possession of the disputed premises by the Respondents to the two alleged workers by name Nirmal Singh and Raju has been proved and the alleged commission is really the consideration for sub-letting, particularly in the context of the inability of the Respondents to produce any record said to have been maintained in running the shop on commission through workers. Consequently, the Rent Controller ordered eviction, by granting at the same time 90 days time from the date of the order to deliver vacant possession.

(3.) The Respondents, the heirs of late Hari Krishan, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the learned Appellate Authority has chosen to reappreciate the materials on record in the manner it appealed to him and after analysing the materials on record, the Appellate Authority drew conclusions quite contrary to the one arrived at by the Rent Controller and ultimately held that the plea of alleged sub-letting taken by the landlord is without any factual basis and there is nothing on record to prove the plea of sub-letting. Per contra, the learned Appellate Authority held that the rented premises are still under the control of the Respondents and Nirmal and Raju, who were working in the shop since the lifetime of deceased Hari Krishan, continued to do tailoring work with the wife of the deceased. Consequently, the order of eviction has been set aside by the Appellate Authority and the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved, the landlord has filed the above revision.