In order to establish sub-tenancy, the landlord must prove that the tenant has parted with the exclusive possession of the premises to the sub-tenant and that the parting of possession was for valuable consideration.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. This is a civil revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 14.1.1983 passed by the Court of the appellate authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act), who accepted the appeal of the landlord-respondents and set aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 12.12.1981, who dismissed the application of the landlords under Section 13 of the Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the landlord-respondents filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act against the tenant-petitioners, with the allegations that the landlords leased their shop to Chela Ram on a monthly rental of Rs. 5/- and that Chela Ram had executed a rent deed on 1.3.1950. It is further alleged that the rate of rent was increased to Rs. 15/- per month in the year 1971 and the said rent was paid upto December, 1973 and, thereafter, the tenant-Chela Ram failed to pay the rent to the landlords who claimed ejectment of the tenants on the grounds of non-payment of rent, change of user and on the plea of sub-letting by alleging that Chela Ram, the original tenant, had let out the demised premises to his son Krishan Lal without the consent of the landlords in writing.

3. The said petition was contested by Chela Ram and his son who filed joint written statement. It was admitted by them that the shop in question was given on rent by the landlords to Chela Ram at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month. However, it was denied that the rate of rent was ever increased to Rs. 15/- per month it was also alleged that ever since the said shop was taken on rent, both the respondents (petitioners herein) were carrying on the business jointly as Medical practitioners as they are member of the joint Hindu family being father and son. Other allegations contained in the petition were also denied. It was also alleged that both the respondents were registered medical practitioners and there was no question of sub-letting or change of user.

4. A rejoinder was filed by the landlords controverting the allegations of the written statement by re-iterating those made in the petition and on the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues for the disposal of the petition:-

"1) Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from the premises in dispute on the ground taken in the application? OPA.

2) Relief."

5. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of the proceedings, issue No. 1 was decided against the landlords and in favour of the tenant and the so-called sub-tenant. On the strength of the decision of issue No. 1, issue No. 2 was also decided against the landlords, as a result of which, the petition under Section 13 of the Act was dismissed. The major grounds taken up by the Rent Controller in dismissing the petition were that respondent No. 2-Krishan Lal is the sole son of his father Chela Ram and they were members of the joint Hindu family and both of them had Unani business in Ayurvedic. The father and son were the medical practitioners and they had been doing the business in the premises in question. Apart from that, Chela Ram is doing the work of Petition Writer. In view of the close proximity of relationship between respondents 1 and 2, the Rent Controller, held that it is not proved at all that Chela Ram had parted the exclusive possession and control of the demised premises to his son Krishan Lal and, in these circumstances, there was no question of sub-letting. The Rent Controller also held that there is no evidence at all to suggest that there was some agreement between the father and son vide which the father had agreed to deliver the possession of the demised premises to his son for consideration.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the landlords filed the appeal in the Court of the appellant authority at Kurukshetra, who allowed the appeal by holding that Krishan Lal was a sub-t