A co-owner can maintain an eviction petition without other co-owners' consent, provided there are no objections, reaffirming that the landlord-tenant relationship must be established for eviction under housing laws.

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

1. These two revisions are directed against order dated 04.05.2018 passed by Appellate Authority under The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 whereby eviction has been ordered from shop as detailed out in the headnote of the eviction petition (hereinafter referred to as the demises premises).

2. Landlord filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the 1973 Act claiming that the demised premises was let out by him and his brother Jagan Nath to respondent No.1 vide rent note dated 01.12.1997 at a monthly rent of Rs.7,000/-. As per terms and conditions of the rent note, respondent No.1 was under obligation to enhance monthly rent by 20% on expiry of every 03 years. At enhanced rent, the monthly rent payable at the time of filing of the eviction petition was Rs.12016. Tenant was in arrears of rent since 01.04.2004. The second ground pleaded seeking eviction was that respondent No.1 had subletted shop in question to respondent No.2 without written consent and approval of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 was in exclusive possession of the shop in question and was independently running business under the name and style of M/s. Suhag Churi Bhandar. Respondent No.1 was charging rent of demised premises from respondent No.2 and has thus parted possession of the demised premises for consideration.

3. Both the respondents contested the petition and filed separate written statements. Respondent No.1 averred that he has no concern with the demised premises. He was never tenant in the said shop. It was further pleaded that respondent No.1 has taken another shop having ground floor as well as first floor where he is running his shop by the name of Super Store since 09.12.2017 at a rent of Rs.7,000/- per month. The said shop was let out by Jagan Nath Bansal. The shop was initially taken for two months. After his business could not flourish, respondent No.1 vacated first floor of the said premises but now has again taken first floor of the same premise on rent w.e.f. 01.04.2006.

4. Respondent No.2 i.e. sub-tenant filed separate written statement claiming that it is Jagan Nath Bansal who is the actual landlord of the shop in question. Jagan Nath Bansal rented out the shop to Raj Kumar Bansal with authority to sublet the same. Raj Kumar Bansal further inducted respondent No.2 as a tenant with consent of Jagan Nath Bansal-landlord.

5. The landlord appeared as PW-2 alongwith Parmod Kumar who appeared as PW-1. PW-1 deed writer was examined to prove the execution of rent note dated 01.12.1997. Respondent No.1 i.e. tenant appeared as RW-2, sub tenant appeared as RW-1, Raj Kumar Bansal appeared as RW-3 and Jagan Nath appeared as RW-4.

6. Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition holding that the same is not maintainable for want of consent of co-owner Jagan Nath who supported the case of tenant while appearing as RW-4. Appellate Authority accepted the appeal preferred by the landlord holding that there was no requirement of prior consent of co-owner for maintaining the eviction petition. Jagan Nath the co-owner though appeared as RW-4, but never objected to the landlord filing the eviction petition. RW-4 Jagan Nath admitted in his cross-examination that petitioner Prem Chand was also co-owner of the shop in question. On analyzing evidence on record, Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that there being no documentary evidence to prove that Raj Kumar Bansal was inducted as tenant by Jagan Nath, story projected by the tenant and the sub-tenant with respect to Hans Ran sub-tenant hav