Revisional jurisdiction under rent acts does not permit re-appreciation of evidence; concurrent findings on sham partnership camouflaging subletting and rent arrears upheld absent perversity. Impleaded sub-tenant can challenge eviction independently.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short the Act), to assail the judgment dated 17.8.2024, passed by learned Appellate Authority-II, Shimla in Rent Appeal No.09-S/13 of 2021, whereby the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, on 13.3.2024 in Rent Petition No.213-2 of 2021 has been affirmed.

2. The respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act, impleading respondents No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as the tenants) and respondent No.4 (hereinafter referred to as the sub-tenant) with the allegation that the tenants had sublet the premises to the sub-tenant.

3. It was alleged that the landlord had inducted Sh. Shrawan Chaudhary as a tenant in a shop, in Ward No.9, Lower Chakkar, Shimla. After the death of original tenant, the tenancy rights were inherited by the tenants, who had further sublet the premises to the sub-tenant. In addition, the eviction was also sought on the ground of arrears of rent. It was claimed that the tenants had not paid the rent w.e.f. July, 2014. The sub-tenancy was alleged to have been created in the month of April, 2021, without the written consent of the landlord.

4. The respondents had contested the claim of the landlord. The allegation of sub-tenancy was specifically denied. It was submitted that the tenants were in possession of the shop and were carrying the business therein in partnership with the sub-tenant. It was claimed that the tenants had to enter into the partnership due to ill-health of Smt. Usha Chaudhary (respondent No.1). As regards the arrears of rent, it was submitted that the landlord had claimed the arrears in another case filed by him under the Act. The liability to pay the arrears of rent as claimed was also specifically denied.

5. The sub-tenant filed his separate reply and also raised defence in tune with the stand taken by the tenants. It was submitted that the sub-tenant was partner with the tenants on 50:50 profit and loss sharing basis in the business being run under the name and style of Shiv Trading Company in the demised premises. It was also submitted that except profit/loss share in the business, the sub-tenant had nothing to do with the demised premises.

6. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues: -

i) Whether respondents No. 1 to 3 have sub-let the demised premises to respondent No.4, as alleged? OPP

ii) Whether the respondents are under arrears of rent, as alleged? OPP

iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPRs

iv) Whether the petition is bad for non-joiner of necessary parties, as alleged? OPRs.

v). Relief”.

7. Issues No.1 and 2 were decided in affirmative and eviction was ordered by the learned Rent Controller on both the grounds.

8. The learned Rent Controller took notice of the partnership deed Ext. RX executed between the tenants and sub-tenant, more particularly, Clause-17 thereof, according to which, the liability to pay the rent, electricity bills, water bills after 1.5.2021 was that of the sub-tenant and in addition, the sub-tenant had also been made liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to Smt. Usha Chaudhary (respondent No.1). The learned Rent Controller on the basis of oral evid