ASHOK BHAN, J. - (1.) THE revision petition has been filed on behalf of the landlord, which arises from the following facts: Landlord let out a shop to the respondent-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) on a monthly rent of Rs. 175/. The ejectment was sought on the following grounds : (i) That the tenant has not paid the rent and house tax w. e. f. 1. 1. 1985 till the dale of filing of the petition in May l986; (ii) that the tenant had sublet the shop to Loku Ram respondent No. 2 after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949 (the present petition has been filed under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 which has replaced the Act of 1949): and has transferred complete possession without the consent of the petitioner, and (iii) that the tenant has converted the shop in to a go down after the commencement of 1949 Act without the consent of the landlord thereby diminishing the value and utility of the same.
(2.) PETITION was contested by the tenant and the alleged sub tenant. Preliminary objections as to the petition being false and frivolous and misjoinder of necessary parties have been taken alleging that M/s Nagpal Cycle Works - in which respondents are partners to be contractual tenant. Grounds of ejectment have been controverted. It has been pleaded: (i) That the rent was tendered with house tax, interest and costs in the Court on 6. 10. 1986 but the landlord refused to accept the tender and, therefore, this ground of ejectment is not available. Rate of rent has been admitted but liability to pay house tax has been disputed: (ii) It was alleged that respondent No. 2 Loku Ram was a partner of the firm M/s Nagpal Cycle Works and not a sub tenant: and (iii) allegation as to conversion of shop into godown and diminishing the value and utility of the shop has been denied. Replication was filed. Allegations made in the written statement were controverted and the ones made in the petition were reiterated.
(3.) ON the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 1? OPA 2. Whether respondent No. 1 is liable to be evicted on account of non payment of rent? OPA 3. Whether respondent No. 1 has sublet the shop in dispute to respondent No. 2 as alleged? OPA 4. Whether the respondents have converted the shop in dispute in to godown as alleged? OPA 5. Relief. ;