Revisional jurisdiction under rent act limits interference to perversity or illegality, not reappreciation; impleaded subtenant has locus to challenge; pleading deficiencies non-fatal absent prejudice.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act’) to assail the order dated 28.02.2018, passed by the Appellate Authority, Hamirpur in Rent Appeal No.1 of 2015, whereby the eviction order dated 22.12.2014 passed by learned Rent Controller, Hamirpur in Rent Petition No.4 of 2009 has been affirmed and upheld.

2. Respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as “landlord”) had filed a petition for eviction against respondent No.2 herein from the demised premises i.e. Shop No.171 Ward No.8, Gandhi Nagar, Hamirpur (for short, “demised premises”) on the following grounds:

(a) That the demised premises was required by the landlord for personal bonafide use; and
(b) That the tenant had sublet the premises to the subtenant.

3. The petitioner herein was also impleaded as party respondent in the capacity of subtenant.

4. For convenience the parties hereafter shall be referred to by the same status in which they were impleaded in the eviction petition.

5. Learned Rent Controller has allowed the petition only on the ground of subletting and the order of learned Rent Controller has also been affirmed by learned appellate authority.

6. The landlord had not assailed the order passed by learned Rent Controller insofar as the ground of personal bonafide requirement was rejected. Thus, since the parties are litigating only on the issue of subletting, I do not find it necessary to deal with the factual and legal aspect of the matter relating to the ground of personal bonafide requirement. The discussion hereafter will, therefore, confine only to the aspects relating to the ground of subletting.

7. The landlord had averred that the demised premises had been sublet by the tenant to sub-tenant as the tenant had settled in Canada and the demised premises was in exclusive occupation of sub-tenant. The landlord had further claimed to have purchased the demises premises from previous owner Shri Dev Raj. As per the landlord, the shop had originally been let out to the tenant by Shri Dev Raj (previous owner) on monthly rent with the condition that the tenant would not sublet or create partnership in the demised premises.

8. The tenant filed the reply and denied the allegation of having sublet the demised premises to the subtenant. It was claimed that the subtenant was a tenant of the owner of the premises. Except for submission of reply, the tenant had not contested the petition effectively.

9. The subtenant also filed his separate reply. He claimed to be in occupation of demised premises as tenant of the predecessor-in-interest of landlord. It was submitted that the subtenant had been paying rent to previous owner of the demised premises. The allegation of subletting was clearly denied. It was stated that the subtenant was the tenant under previous owner Shri Dev Raj and thereafter under the landlord.

10. The landlord, besides examining herself as witness, had examined a witness from the office of SDO (Phones) BSNL, Hamirpur, who had deposed that telephone No.224431 had been installed in the name of Bagga and Company since 31.08.1982. Another witness was examined from the office of AETC Hamirpur, according to whom, the Bagga and Company was a partnership of Smt. Krishna Devi and Kuldeep Kumar till 1985 and thereafter the registration was in the name of Kuldeep Kumar (tenant). There was no registration in the n