SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the legal heirs of Hari Kishan (respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the ejectment application) have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground that they had sublet the demised premises to respondent No. 5 without the consent of the landlord and also on the ground of non-payment of rent as the arrears of rent were not validly tendered by the legal heirs of Hari Kishan, tenant. In nutshell, the case of the landlord is that the shop in dispute was rented out to Hari Kishan son of Uttam Chand at the monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. He was exclusively doing his business in the said shop as sole proprietor. He died in a road accident in the year 1982. After his death, his legal heirs, namely, his widow Smt. Sarla Devi, minor daughter Santosh @ Rakhi, his mother Smt. Parwati and his father Uttam Chand (who were impleaded as respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the ejectment application) came in possession of the shop. Subsequently, those legal heirs sublet the shop in question to Ashok Kumar, another son of Uttam Chand at the monthly rent of Rs. 300/- without the consent of the landlord. Now said Ashok Kumar is exclusively doing his business in the said shop as sole proprietor. It was further the case of the landlord that Hari Kishan was regularly paying the rent to him, but after his death, his legal heirs had not paid the rent and the landlord claimed the arrears of rent from 1.6.1982 to 30.6.1985. On 11.10.1985, the landlord filed the ejectment application on the grounds of non-payment of rent and sub-letting. Respondent No. 1, Smt. Sarla Devi did not contest the application. However, the other legal heirs (respondent Nos. 2 to 4) and the alleged sub-tenant (respondent No. 5) contested the ejectment application.
(2.) IN the written statement, the contesting respondents took the stand that the shop in dispute was never let out to Hari Kishan. Actually, it was rented out by the landlord to Uttam Chand. It was further pleaded that Hari Kishan used to sit in the shop with his father Uttam Chand, who was in exclusive possession of the same. After the death of Hari Kishan, Ashok Kumar (respondent No. 5) was assisting his father in the business. It was further pleaded that the business being run in the shop, was the joint business of the respondents. Therefore, it was alleged that the demised premises was not sublet to respondent No. 5. On the first date of hearing, the respondents tendered the arrears of rent along with cost and interest as assessed by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller accepted the stand of the respondents that the shop in dispute was let out to Uttam Chand alone and Hari Kishan and respondent No. 5 Ashok Kumar were running the business in the shop with respondent No. 4 being his sons. Therefore, it was held that there was no subletting of the demised premises. Regarding non-payment of rent, it was held that the arrears of rent along with cost and interest, as assessed by the Rent Controller, were tendered on the first date of hearing, therefore, non-payment of arrears of rent became redundant.
(3.) ON appeal by the landlord, the Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Controller and passed ejectment order against the respondents on the grounds of subletting as well as non-payment of rent. Against the said order, the instant revision petition has been filed.;