- (1.) This judgment shall dispose of two civil revisions i.e. Civil Revision No. 632 of 2011 and Civil Revision No. 1367 of 2011, arising out of one common judgment of the Appellate Authority, Faridabad. However, for convenience sake, the facts are taken from Civil Revision No. 632 of 2011. Respondent No. 1 filed ejectment petition seeking ejectment of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 from the land in dispute measuring 7 kanal on the averments that the landlord vide lease deed dated 26.07.1995 had leased out the land in dispute to respondent No. 2 for 20 years on a yearly rent of Rs. 15,000/- and as per the said agreement the rent was to increase @ 10% after every five years. Thus, at the time of filing of the petition, the rent was Rs. 16,500/- per annum. Respondent No. 2 was in arrears of rent since 01.01.2000 for four years and ten months which comes to Rs. 79,750/-. It was further averred that respondent No. 1 had also leased out land measuring 11K-8M (subject matter of Civil Revision No. 1367 of 2011) to Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, respondent No. 2 in Civil Revision No. 1367 of 2011, who sub-let the same in favour of Mr. S.K. Singla, respondent No. 3 in Civil Revision No. 1367 of 2011, who later on sub-let it in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in Civil Revision No. 1367 of 2011 vide lease deed dated 30.04.2003 Thus, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in Civil Revision No. 632 of 2011 and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in Civil Revision No. 1367 of 2011 were liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in both the cases were in arrears of rent and had sub-let the land in question in favour of respondent No. 3 in each case vide lease deed dated 08.01.1997 without the consent of respondent No. 1, who later on sub-let it in favour of respondent No. 4 and 5 vide lease deed dated 30.04.2003 the land in dispute which is subject matter of both the Civil Revisions without the consent and knowledge of the respondent-landlord. It was further averred that the tenant-petitioners have ceased to occupy the above mentioned land for more than four months and the same was lying vacant.
(2.) Upon notice, respondent No. 2 in both the cases did not appear in the Court and were proceeded against ex parte. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in both the cases filed their written statement raising certain preliminary objections. On merits, it was denied that the rate of rent was Rs. 16,500/- per annum. It was also denied that respondent No. 2 has not paid the rent since 01.01.2000. It was further stated that respondent No. 3 had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,03,500/- on 31.03.2004, Rs. 25,000/- on 02.04.2004, Rs. 25,000/- on 01.05.2003, Rs. 28,500/- and Rs. 656/- on 10.01.2005, respectively. It was admitted that respondent No. 1 had leased out the land to respondent No. 2 vide lease deed dated 26.07.1995. A specific stand was taken that the petitioners and respondent No. 3 had obtained leasehold rights from respondent No. 2 with the consent of Sh. Hukam Singh Rathi, the representative of respondent No. 1 and at that time no objection was raised by the representative of the petitioner in any manner, whatsoever. Denying rest of the contents of the petition, dismissal of the ejectment petition was sought.
(3.) From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller, Faridabad: 1. Whether the respondents are liable to be evicted from the premises in question on the ground as alleged in the petition? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR 3. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR 4. Whether the petition is bad for want of concealment of material facts by the petitioner from the Court? OPR 5. Relief.;