IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Civil Revision No. 172 of 2018

Date of Decision: 17.12.2025

Renu Gujral .....Petitioner.

Versus

Chander Kanta (Deceased) through LRs.

…..Respondents.

Coram f

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhi r Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Mr.

Karun tNegi, Advocate.

F or the Respondents: M r. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

The presoent petition has been filed against the

impugnedC judgment dated 27.06.2018, passed by the learned Appellate Authority-III, Solan, District Solan, HP in a rent Appeal No.2-ADJ-II/14 of 2014, whereby the appeal

gpreferred by the present petitioner against order dated

i21.04.2018, passed by the learned Rent Controller-II,

Solan, District Solan, HP has been dismissed.

2. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with

the present petition.

3. Eviction, in the case at hand was sought on the ground of subletting. In the eviction petition, it was averred that the present petitioner/tenant was running a

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

mobile shop in the tenanted premises in the name and style of ‘Mobile World and Gift Gallery.’ The said shopP had been given to the petitioner/tenant vide a rent agreement dated 01.08.2012. It was alleged that the petitioner/tenant sublet the premises to one Sh. Kalam Singh in the month of February, 2o014 and thereafter said Sh. Kalam Singh was running th e mobile shop in the name and style ‘Mobile World and Gift Gallery.’

4. In response filed, subletting by the present petitioner/tenanot to one Sh. Kalam Singh was denied. It was caCtegorically averred that the present petitioner/tenant was carrying the business in the name and style of ‘Mobile World and Gift Gallery’ for the last gmany years.

i5. In the replication contents of the eviction petition were reiterated and those contrary were denied. The issues were framed on 04.04.2015. Parties went to the trial. The trial Court post considering the evidence on record, evicted the present petitioner/tenant on the ground of subletting on 21.04.2018. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.06.2018. It is in the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the present revision petition has been preferred. P

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/tenant submits that parting of possession of tenancy in favour of 3^rd party with exclusive right of possessio n has not been established by the landlord/respondoent in the case at hand and therefore, the eviction ord er passed in the case at hand need to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/landolord submits that sub-tenancy is created in a clandesCtine manner and therefore, subletting can be proved on the basis of legitimate inferences. Other than the aforesaid, he submits that reappreciation of evidence gunder the Rent Act as applicable to the State is not ipermissible in a revisional jurisdiction.

8. This Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate Court/first appellate authority because on reappreciation of the evidence, the Rent Act as applicable to the State does not entitle this Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate authority merely because on reappreciation of the evidence, its views may be different from the authority below.

9. The legal position has been summed up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Constitution Bench decisiPon in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited versus Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 wherein it was observed as under:-

“43. We hold, as we must, that noone of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellat e Court/First Appellate Authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is