V.P.Gupta, J. - (1.)The facts in this case are that Durga Dass (respondent) filed an application for eviction of Dharam Pal (petitioner) under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urbun Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act of 1971). It is alleged by the respondent that the petitioner has sublet the premises to one Phambi Ram without the written consent of the respondent and for this reason the petitioner is liable to eviction. The eviction petition was fifed on 26th August, 1976, and the notice regarding termination of tenancy was served upon the petitioner on 28/29th July, 1976. It is admitted by the parties that Phambi Ram (alleged sub-tenant) vacated the premises on or about 9th August, 1976.
(2.)The petitioner contested the eviction petition and alleged that he is in possession from the year 1943 and that Phambi Ram was inducted as a subtenant in the year 1944, when there was no limitation or hinderance in subletting the premises. The petitioner also alleges that the respondent had knowledge about this subletting and it was with the implied consent of the respondent and his predecessors-in -interest. It is further alleged that Phambi Ram (alleged sub-tenant) has vacated the premises before the filing of the eviction petition, therefore, no eviction order can be passed on the ground of subletting.
(3.)On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : "1. Whether the premises in dispute have been, sublet without the consent of the landlord by respondent 2? OPR. 2. Whether the subletting was effected previous to the enforcement of the H. P. Rent Control Act and Punjab Rent Restriction Act to the knowledge of the landlord? OPR. 3. Whether there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? OPR.
;