HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE landlords are in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority whereby the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller was set aside while accepting the appeal of the tenant.
(2.) THE petitioners have sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that respondent No. 1 was inducted as tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- in the month of November, 1990. It was agreed that the house tax, if imposed, shall be payable by the said respondent. It is alleged that the said respondent has not paid the rent after January, 1993 and, thus, respondent No. 1 is liable to be evicted for non-payment of rent and the house tax. The petitioner has also sought ejectment of respondent No. 1 on the ground that respondent No. 1 has sublet the premises to respondent No. 2 without the written consent of the petitioners and that the shop in dispute is required for their bona fide use and occupation. The respondent No. 1 in his written statement admitted the relationship between the parties admitting the rate of rent, but denied his liability to pay the house tax. It is the stand of respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 2 is his partner and business in the shop is joint. On the other hand, the respondent No. 2 has denied that he was sub tenant inducted by respondent No. 1 and stated that he has directly taken the shop in dispute on monthly rent of Rs. 500/- from petitioner No. 1 Gurdial Singh in November, 1990. It was denied that respondent No. 1 was ever put in possession of the shop as tenant. The requirement of the shop for personal necessity of the petitioners is also denied.
(3.) THE learned Rent Controller returned a finding that respondent No. 2 is direct tenant under Gurdial Singh @ Rs. 500/- per month. The learned Rent Controller did not find merit in the plea that the premises are required for bona fide use and occupation of the petitioners. However, the learned Rent Controller found that respondent No. 2 has not established payment of rent upto 10.1.1998, as pleaded in the written statement after examining his statement on oath given in the Court and consequently, returned a finding that respondent No. 2 was in arrears of rent and, thus he is liable to be evicted. However, the learned Appellate Authority accepted the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 herein while relying on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported as P.C. Verman (Retd.), Lt. Col. Dr. v. Mohinder Singh and others, 1997(2) RCR(Rent) 529 : 1997(3) PLR 857, wherein it was held that a person who is impleaded as sub-tenant cannot be evicted for non-payment of arrears of rent and consequently, allowed the appeal while setting aside the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller.;