The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'sub-letting' under Section 14(2) of the Act and the burden of proof on the landlord to establish sub-letting.

The short point, which arises for consideration in the present Revision Petition, is as to whether the landlady has made out a case for ejectment, on the ground of sub-letting or not. In effect, what is the true meaning and scope of the terms “sub-letting” requires to be interpreted.

2. Certain facts are not in dispute. The demised premises, i.e. Shop No.12/42, situate in Ward No.8, Doonga Bazar, Kangra, was let out to Kishori Lal (now dead and represented through legal representatives) in the year 1994. Rent Note (Ex. PW-3/A) is on record.

3. The Act specifies several grounds on which a tenant can be evicted. For ready reference Section 14(2) of the Act is reproduced as under:-

“14. Eviction of tenants.

(1). … …

(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied-

(i) ……….

(ii) that the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord –

(a) transferred his rights under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof, or

(b) used the building or rented land for a purpose other than that for which it was leased ; or the Controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land … …”

4. The landlady filed a petition for ejectment on two grounds: (a) successors-in-interest of the original tenant having sub-let the premises to Padam Chand (respondent No.2, herein), and (b) the premises used for a purpose other than the one for which it was let out.

5. The Rent Controller, in terms of order dated 19.11.1999, passed in Rent Petition No.7 of 1996, titled as Smt. Urbashi v. Smt. Shakuntla Devi and others, allowed the petition, directing ejectment of the tenant on both the counts.

6. In the tenants’ appeal, the Appellate Authority, vide judgment dated 28.3.2007, passed in Rent Civil Misc. Appeal No.1/K/2000, titled as Smt. Shakuntla & others versus Smt. Urbashi (now deceased), through LRs, reversed such findings of fact on both the counts, and dismissed the petition, so filed by the landlady.

2. The scope of interference in a petition, filed under sub-section (5) of Section 24 of the Act, is now well settled. This Court in Civil Revision No.154 of 2004, titled as Yog Raj Sood v. Smt. Sunita Kaushal & another, decided on 1.6.2016, has observed as under:

“28. For the purpose of convenience and ready reference sub-Section (5) of Section 24 of the Act is extracted as under:-

“Vesting of Appellate Authority on officers by the State Government.

Section 24 … …… …

(5) The High Court may, at any time, on the application of the aggrieved party or on its own motion call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceeding and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit.”

[Emphasis supplied]

29. A Full Bench of this court in Vinod alias Raja vs. Smt. Joginder Kaur, 2012 (3) Him. L. R. (FB) 1401 has held the right of appeal to be a statutory right, not to be circumscribed by the delegatee/State Government.

30. The order of the authority attaches finality not to be called in question in any Court of law, except by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction which can be either on an application filed by an aggrieved party or suo motu by the Court. The court can call for and examine the records for “satisfying itself” about the “legality and propriety” of the “order” or the “proceedings”. The High Court may pass orders as it may “deem fit”.

31. Now what is the scope of such revisional jurisdiction and the extent of the power which the court can exercise is now well settled by a five- Judge Bench of the apex Court reported in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs.

Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC