MAHADEO RAO Vs. RAM NATH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been moved by Shri Mahadeo Rao, tenant, against his judgment of Appellate Authority (Rent Act) in C.M.A. No. 67-S/14 of 1983 whereby the judgment of the Rent Controller (II), Shimla, in Case No. 91-2 of 1980 has been affirmed and the tenant have been evicted from the premises in dispute. This is how the matter has been brought here by the tenant challenging the impugned decision.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the landlord initiated an eviction petition before the Rent Controller, Shimla, stating therein that he is the owner of shop No. 86 (Western portion) towards Power House at Sanjauli, Shimla. The premises are of non-residential nature and Mahadeo Rao was the statutory tenant on payment of Rs. 40/- per month as rent, inclusive of taxes. The allegations, on the basis of which eviction has been sought, pertain to the non-payment of rent from 1-8-1979 to 31-8-1980 totalling Rs. 538.80, inclusive of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, and that the tenant had sub-let these premises to Mansha Ram, after coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, in the year 1979, without the written consent of the landlord and that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months prior to the institution of the petition and it is Mansha Ram, who has been in possession of these premises since then. On the other hand, the objections of the tenant, inter alia, are that the petition is not in accordance with law and that the premises have not been sub-let to Mansha Ram since they are, as a matter of fact, in his exclusive possession as tenant under the landlord and that Shri Mansha Ram was running the Tea Stall in the premises in question in the name and style of Calcutta Tea Stall in partnership by virtue of written partnership deed dated 27-2-1979, which fact was made known to the landlord in response to the notice served by him through his counsel and, therefore, in these circumstances, the complaint that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months was not justifiable. So far as the arrears of rent are concerned, it has been stated that the tender of the same was made to the landlord but the non-payment was due to the refusal of the landlord, without any justification to receive the same. So, this disentitles him to claim interest and costs of this petition.

(3.) The Rent Controller framed the following issues in this matter : "1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest and costs as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 1 has sublet the premises in favour of the respondent No. 2, as alleged? OPP