MAHESH GROVER, J. - (1.) THE present revision has been filed by the landlord impugning the orders of the Rent Controller dated 29.7.1997 and the Appellate Authority dated 26.3.1998 whereby his petition for ejectment of the respondents under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was dismissed.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that initially the petitioner set up a tenancy in favour of the father of the respondents No. 1 to 3 in respect of a vacant plot at a monthly rent of Rs. 450/- since long. Shops had been constructed on this plot by the respondents and ever since they were in occupation of the same. However, the shops had been sublet to respondents No. 4 to 7 who are now running their business from the said premises. The eviction of the respondents was sought on the following grounds :- 1. That the respondents are in arrears of rent and house tax since 1.3.1990 upto date which they have not paid despite repeated requests and demands. 2. That the shops in dispute are unfit and unsafe for human habitation and multiple cracks have developed in the shops in question and the walls have left the corner. The rafters have taken bent and have been eaten by white ants, the roof of the some shops in question is in dangerous condition and some has fallen. The floor is broken. As a matter of fact the whole shops have become ruined conditions and may fall at any time. 3. That the respondents No. 1 to 3 have sublet/assigned the shops in dispute to the respondents No. 4 to 7 who are running their business in the disputed shops openly. However, the respondents No. 1 to 3 have no right to sublet the shops in question. Respondents No. 1 to 3 contested the petition and admitted that the tenancy had been created in favour of their father Jagan Nath on a vacant plot and that the shops had been constructed by them. It was further pleaded that the rent of the shops was increased from Rs. 450/- to Rs. 1,000/- on 26.6.1981 and all other grounds for eviction were denied and it was stated that the shops had been constructed by the respondents at their own expense and the subletting was also admitted. But a plea was taken that since the original rent note executed by the petitioner permitted the use of shops in any manner, therefore, it did not amount to subletting and rather was covered by the terms stipulated in the rent note.
(3.) THE Rent Controller on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as four issues which are as follows :- 1. Whether the respondents are in arrears of rent plus house tax since 1.3.90 upto date ? OPA 2. Whether the shop in question is unfit and unsafe for human habitation ? OPA 3. Whether the respondents No. 1 to 3 have sublet the shops in question in favour of respondents No. 4 to 7 ? OPA 4. Relief. ;