The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the requirements for proving subletting under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 include parting with possession of the premises to a third party and receiving monetary consideration. Additionally, the court clarified that the death of the original tenant did not nullify the grounds for eviction based on subletting, and the legal heirs inherited the rights and obligations of the tenancy.

S.S.Saron, J.

1. This order will dispose of the above said two Civil Revision Petitions No. 1358 and 1359 of 1981 which relate to somewhat similar facts and circumstances. The tenants-petitioners in both the cases are common. The landlords-respondents are also almost common inasmuch as one petition for eviction had been filed by the landlord Shiv Shankar Lal in his own capacity and the other by the Raghunath Dass Trust, Charkhi Dadri through Shiv Shankar Lal aforesaid and his wife Smt. Kamla Rani as trustees of the said trust. Both the petitions for eviction are filed against the same tenants Mohri Ram (petitioner No. 1) son of Balak Ram and his sons Ramji Dass (petitioner No. 2) and Ram Dayal (petitioner No. 3). Mohri Ram died during the pendency of the petition on 3.9.1985 and Ramji Dass, Ram Dayal, Subhash Chand, Munish Kumar, Chander Bhan sons of Mohri Ram, Bimla daughter of Mohri Ram and Bhirawan Bai widow of Mohri Ram were impleaded as his LRs and are on record. Therefore, both the petitions can be disposed of by a common order.

2. The tenants-petitioners assail the order dated 10.3.1981 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (Act - for short) whereby the appeal of the landlordsrespondents against the order dated 27.8.1979 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Charkhi Dadri has been accepted and the eviction of the tenants-petitioners has been ordered.

3. In the petition filed by landlord Shiv Shankar Lal in his own capacity, he sought eviction of Mohri Ram son of Balak Ram, Ramji Das and Ram Dayal sons of Mohri Ram. In the connected petition the Raghunath Dass Trust, Charkhi Dadri through Shiv Shankar Lal and his wife Kamla Rani as trustees of the said Trust filed a petition also seeking ejectment of Mohri Ram and his sons Ramji Dass and Ram Dayal. In the case filed by Shiv Shankar Lal in his own capacity the ejectment is sought under Section 13 of the Act from one shop bearing No. 24 (single storey) as detailed in the petition and in the alternative prayer has been made for fixing fair rent of the said shop. The shop No. 24, it is alleged, was taken on rent at a monthly rent of Rs. 70/- on 1.8.1961 by Mohri Ram for his personal use for 11 months. Mohri Ram executed a rent note dated 17.8.1961 in favour of the landlord Shiv Shankar Lal. The grounds of eviction taken by the landlord for the eviction of his tenant Mohri Ram are that he had sublet the demised premises to his sons Ramji Dass and Ram Dayal who are running their business in a partnership in the shop in question. Mohri Ram, it was alleged, had got no concern with the firm nor did he have any control thereon. The other ground on which the eviction was sought in respect of the said shop No. 24 is that the tenants had prepared `Dachhatti and tand which had weakened the wall. Besides, they had fixed two almirahs on the Chabutra in front of the shop. These additions, it is alleged, had materially impaired the value and utility of the shop. The respondents to the petition for ejectment filed their reply in which a preliminary objection was raised that the landlord was seeking relief of eviction on the one hand and at the same time was demanding fair rent. Besides, the application had not been properly valued for the purpose of Court-fee. It was also stated that the tenancy of the respondents in the petition for ejectment was contractual and on that account was required to be terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Moreover, the shop was taken on rent by the firm Ram Parkash Ramji Dass through Mohri Ram who is the Karta of the said firm Ram Parkash Ramji Dass. It is alleged that since the said firm had not been joined as a respondent to the petition seeking ejectment, the petition seeking the ejectment was bad. On facts, it was stated that the firm had been running its business earlier to the execution of the rent note dated 17.8.1961. Ram Parkash had died about ten years earli