J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but eviction order was passed in appeal.
(2.) THE landlords sought ejectment of their tenant Smt. Uma Gupta who got the premises on rent vide rent note dated 15.2.1968, exhibit A2, on monthly rent of Rs. 65/ -. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the tenant has sublet the premises in question to Ved Parkash Respondent No. 2 in the ejectment application, without their written consent. The stand taken by the tenant in her written statement was that Ved Parkash Respondent No. 2 was the brother of her husband and they are members of the joint Hindu family and as such are living together in the demised premises since the very inception of the tenancy and this fact is in the knowledge of the landlords Therefore, they are legally estopped by their own act and conduct to file the petition.
(3.) THE learned Rent Controller found that the landlords have failed to prove the ground of subletting as alleged In view of that finding the ejectment application was dismissed vide order dated 30.4.1986. However, in appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the tenant Smt. Uma Gupta has sub let the premises in dispute to Ved Parkash Respondent No. 2 without the written consent of the landlords. The plea of the tenant that the property was rented out to the joint Hindu family was negatived with the observations that "in the present case admittedly the property was not let out to the joint Hindu family and there is nothing on the record that Respondent No. 1 had taken written consent of the land lords of subletting the property to Ved Parkash." The learned Counsel for the tenant -Petitioners submitted that the whole approach of the learned Appellate Authority was wrong and illegal. The view taken by the Rent Controller was perfectly valid. He particularly referred to Exhibit D1, dated 12.2.1968 a letter written on behalf of the landlords to the Sub Divisional Officer, Haryana State Electricity Board, permitting reconnection of the electricity in the name of Ved Parkash and Exhibit D2 of the same date, by which connection was restored to Ved Parkash. to contend that Ved Parkash has been living in the demised premises from the very inception of tenancy and, therefore, could not be held to be a sub -tenant. Moreover, argued the learned Counsel, the rent note Exhibit A2 was a mere paper transaction. The house was rented out to the joint Hindu family and, therefore, the finding of Appellate Authority is wrong and illegal. He also pointed out that when the tenant Smt. Uma Gupta appeared in the witness -box as R.W. 1, no question was put to her that where she was living at present. According to the learned Counsel, there was no evidence to show that Smt. Uma Gupta was not in occupation of the demised premises.;