SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of two connected civil revisions viz. C.R. Nos. 5861 and 5862 of 1999, involving common questions of law and fact. The facts, as noticed below, have been taken from C.R. 5861 of 1999.
(2.) RAM Kishan (sub-tenant) has filed this revision petition under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') for setting aside order dated 4.10.1999, passed by the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, whereby after reversing the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner has been ordered to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of sub-letting. In this case, respondent - Moti Ram filed the ejectment application against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 - Mangal Singh, alleging therein that the house in question was let out to Mangal Singh on the rent of Rs. 35/- per month, somewhere in 1971. Thereafter, 10 years before the filing for the ejectment application (which was filed on 8.3.1995), the demised premises was let out by Mangal Singh to the petitioner on a rent of Rs. 100/- per month, without the written consent of the landlord. The ejectment application was filed on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of sub- letting. Respondent - Mangal Singh did not appear and he was proceeded ex- parte. The petitioner contested the ejectment application on the ground that he is the direct tenant on the demised premises which was taken on rent by him from Niranjan Lal, father of Moti Ram (landlord) in the year 1980 @ Rs. 100/- per month. Subsequently, the rate of rent was increased to Rs. 125/- per month, which he was paying regularly, though no rent receipt was ever issued to the petitioner by the said Niranjan Lal.
(3.) THE Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application while holding that the respondent-landlord had failed to prove the alleged sub-tenancy. The said conclusion was arrived at on the ground that for 10 years, the landlord did not file the ejectment application inspite of having the knowledge of sub- tenancy. The second ground of non-payment of rent was held to be not survived as the claimed rent was tendered.;