A.N.JINDAL,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.3.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority, Rewari dismissing the appeal of the tenant-petitioner and upholding the order of eviction dated 21.8.2002 passed by the Rent Controller, Rewari.
(2.) FACTUAL matrix of the case is that Bimla Devi, landlady-respondent claiming herself to be the owner of the disputed shop bearing Municipal No. 1471 situated in Gokal Bazar Rewari, sought eviction of the petitioners under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the grounds of non-payment of rent and subletting. Since the rent due against the petitioners was tendered, therefore, the ground of non-payment of rent was given up. Regarding the ground of subletting, it was submitted by the respondent that she had rented out the shop in dispute to M/s Bombay Trading Company through Krishan Lal (petitioner No. 2 herein) and Chander Kumar (since deceased, whose legal representatives are petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 herein), both partners of the firm. They sublet the said shop to Shiv Kumar and Lekh Raj (respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein), 4/5 years back to the filing of the eviction petition, without her consent and delivered possession to them. Krishan Lal is running the cloth shop in the name and style of 'Krishan Cheap Cloth House' in the shop of his father bearing Municipal No. 1453 situated at Gokal Bazar Rewari and Chander Kumar was employed In the shop of Krishan Lal son of Bhagwan Dass situated at Gokal Bazar Rewari. The aforesaid submissions were controverted by the respondents in their reply and it was submitted that from the very inception of tenancy M/s Bombay Trading Company has been carrying on its business and Shiv Kumar (petitioner No. 6) was added as partner in June, 1981 and later on from 1.4.1991, Krishan Lal, Shiv Kumar and Lekh Raj became the partners of the said firm. It was also denied that petitioners Krishan Lal and Chander Kumar sublet the disputed shop to Shiv Kumar and Lekh Raj. It was further averred that Krishan Lal was in control and possession of the disputed shop as he is not carrying on any other business and he is still the partner in the firm.
(3.) ON filing of rejoinder, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:- "1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised property as alleged in the petition ? OPP 2. Relief." ;