The burden of proof with respect to subletting shifts to the tenant once the landlord prima facie shows that the tenant has parted with possession. The court relied on case law to establish that the respondent had sublet the shop to his sons and changed the user of the premises.

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

CM-17196-CII-2015

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 70 days in re-filing the revision petition.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay in refiling, thus, the same is allowed and delay of 70 days in re-filing the revision petition is condoned.

CM-17195-CII-2015

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 23 days in filing the revision petition.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay on account of bonafide inadvertence, thus, the same is allowed and delay of 23 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

MAIN CASE:

1. By way of present revision petition challenge has been made to an order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority, Faridabad, affirming the order dated 26.07.2013, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Faridabad, whereby, eviction petition filed at the instance of the petitioner-landlord pertaining to shop No.25 has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, petitioner filed an ejectment petition interalia pleading that it is a Trust duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Delhi and owns Shop No.25 situated at Surdas Market, Civil Hospital Road, Ballabgarh; respondent No.1 took the said shop on rent from the petitioner Trust on payment of monthly rent of Rs.230/- excluding house tax and other charges and in an earlier petition filed under Section 13 of the Act, the rent was agreed to be Rs.750/- per month. The petitioner Trust sought eviction of respondent No.1 on the ground that he was a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and had not paid rent from 01.06.2006 till August, 2010 i.e. for 50 months and had even sub-let the shop to respondents No.2 and 3 in an illegal and unauthorized manner. It was also pleaded that respondent No.1 had divided the shop into two portions by installing two different shutters and the sublettees had changed user of commercial shop into a residential premises.

3. In reply, it was submitted by the respondents that the demised shop was taken on rent from the petitioner by respondent No.1. In case titled as "PMMT versus Yad Ram" Case No.80/ 30.5.2006/09 decided on 24.11.2009, the rent of the demised shop was fixed @ of Rs. 750/- per month w.e.f. 24.11.2009 and in a subsequent compromise effected between the parties in the said petition, respondent No.1 had already deposited rent for the period 01.09.2007 to 30.04.2008 and was ready to deposit the remaining amount in the Court. It was also submitted that respondent No.1 neither divided the demised shop into two portions; nor sublet the same to respondents No.2 and 3. It was again submitted that the demised shop was being used only for the commercial purpose and not for residential purpose as alleged by the petitioner, thus, there was no change of user by the respondents.

4. Vide order dated 26.07.2013 passed by Rent Controller, ejectment petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on all the three grounds i.e. default in payment of rent, subletting and change of user. Aggrieved therefrom, an appeal was filed by the petitioner-landlord, but learned Appellate Authority, Faridabad, vide impugned order dated 27.11.2014 dismissed the same while affirming the order dated 26.07.2013 passed by the Rent Controller.

5. Impugning the aforementioned judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, makes it clear that he does not intend to press the contention regarding default in payment of rent, however, with respect to subletting, he submits that it has been the case of petitioner since beginning that respondent No.1 has divided the shop into two portions by installing two different shutters and while one portion is being used by his elder son for residential purpose, whereas in another portion, other son is running the shop independently. Placing reliance upon "Mohri Ram (D) LRs. Ramji Dass v.