RAM CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. RENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 8-11-2011 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Sikar (hereinafter 'the Appellate Tribunal') upholding the order dated 31-5-2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal Sikar (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') allowing the eviction petition filed by the landlord Chandra Swarup Mathur (hereinafter 'the landlord') and thereupon issuing a certificate of possession in respect of tenanted shop near Salasar bus-stand. The facts of the case are that the landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Rent Act') against the petitioner No.1 tenant Ram Chandra Sharma (hereinafter 'the tenant') and one Nemi Chand Sain alleging therein that the tenanted premises was let out on 18-3-1996 on a rent of Rs.240/- per month. The landlord alleged that the tenant had caused damage to the rented premises; made material alterations without the permission of the landlord; created nuisance and used the shop for the purpose contrary to the contract for which the shop was let out. Further that the tenant was stated to have parted with the possession of the shop/ sublet the same to one Nemi Chand Sain.

(2.) ON notice, reply to eviction petition was filed by the tenant who denied the allegations in the eviction petition. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal proceeded to frame the following issues:- ......[vernaculam text ommited]..... In respect of issues No.1 to 3, the Tribunal did not find the requisite evidence and decided the same against the landlord. However on the issue of parting with possession/ subletting the Tribunal found that the shop was let out on 18-3-1996, where from he was engaged in the business of selling footwear. But the tenant had subsequently ceased to engage in the business of selling footwear. Instead a barber's shop had been started in the tenanted premises. The Tribunal considered the evidence in defence brought by the tenant that the barber shop in the tenanted premises was his own business and that Nemi Chand Sain was merely his employee on a salary of Rs.2500/- per month. However no documentary evidence was produced by the tenant. The Tribunal took into consideration the evidence on record that the tenant was at the time relevant driving a taxi and was not concerned with the running of the barber shop for which he had neither the training nor the experience. Based on the aforesaid findings on issue No.4, with regard to subletting/ parting with possession of the tenanted shop, the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 31-5-2011 proceeded to allow the eviction petition and issued a certificate of possession in favour of the landlord under Section 15 (7) of the Rent Act.