The court clarified the binding effect of previous judgments, the evidentiary requirements for proving sub-letting, and the retrospective operation of the Rent Act.

G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. This petition under Section 15(5) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act) is directed against judgment dated 13.12.1985 vide which Appellate Authority. Ambala City allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 against the order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt.

2. The petitioner purchased shop No. 353-C situated in R.A. Bazar, Ambala Cantt. from Shri Bawan Singh vide sale deed dated 3.11.1976. After 8-1/2 months, she filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the respondents on the ground of non-payment of rent and water charges since 3.11.1976 and also on the ground that respondent No. 1-Satpal had sub-let the shop to respondent No. 2-Raj Kumar. She averred that respondent No. 1 was a tenant under Shri Bawan Singh and was paying Rs. 20/- per month as rent apart from water tax and that after she had purchased the shop in question, he had become her tenant on the same terms and conditions. She further averred that respondent No. 1 had sub-let the tenanted premises to respondent No. 2 without the written consent of the landlord. She relied on judgments dated 4.1.1973 and 5.1.1974 passed by Sub Judge, Ambala Cantt. and Additional District Judge, Ambala, respectively in the suit filed by Shri Bawan Singh and averred that the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts that respondent No. 1-Satpal was the tenant and respondent No. 2-Raj Kumar was sub-tenant is binding on them.

3. In the reply filed by him, respondent No. 1 denied that he was a tenant under Shri Bawan Singh in respect of the shop in question and averred that he was a surety of respondent No. 2 for payment of rent and in fact, he was the tenant. In his separate reply, respondent No. 2 averred that he was a tenant under the previous landlord and was paying Rs. 20/- per month towards rent and water tax. He further averred that respondent No. 1 has nothing to do with the tenancy of the shop in question. With regard to judgments dated 4.1.1973 and 5.1.1974, respondent No. 2 averred that the suit of Shri Bawan Singh was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 11.12.1974 rendered in R.S.A. No. 327 of 1974 and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Courts below was not binding on him.

4. The petitioner filed replications to the replies of the respondents reiterating her plea that respondent No. 1 was the tenant and he had sub-let the shop without written consent of the landlord.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent, Controller framed the following issues (The issues are being reproduced from the original order of the Rent Controller):-

(1) Whether the respondent No. 1 is not a tenant and only a surety? OPR1

(2) Whether the respondent No. 2 is a direct tenant under the applicant? OPRII

(3) If issue No. 1 and 2 are not proved whether the respondents are not liable to be ejectment on the grounds mentioned in the application? OPA

(4) Relief.

6. Respondent No. 1 did not appear before the Rent Controller after framing of issues, but the other parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence.

7. On a consideration of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the Rent Controller decided all the issues in favour of the petitioner and ordered the ejectment of the respondents. He held that the finding recorded in judgment dated 4.1.1973 passed by Sub Judge, Ambala Cantt. and judgment dated 5.1.1974 of Additional District Judge, Ambala that respondent No. 1-Sat Pal was the tenant and respondent No. 2-Raj Kumar was sub-tenant is binding on the parties. He further held that the evidence produced by the petitioner in the form of receipts Exhibits P4 to P17 and counter-foils Exhibits P18 to P20 which were duly proved by summoning the file of Civil Suit No. 188 dated 9.12.1971 filed by Shri Bawan Singh and the two judgments were sufficient to prove that respondent No. 1 was the tenant and he had sub-let the premises to respondent No. 2. He also held that re