Civil Revision No. 6773 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6773 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 07.11.2011 *** Ashok Kumar & Anr. .. Petitioners VS. KEC Metallic Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Notice of motion. Mr. R.S. Madan, Advocate accepts notice. Heard. Both the Courts below, pursuant to a petition filed under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, by the respondent, have ordered the eviction of the petitioners from the shops in question, on the ground of subletting thereof by petitioner No.1, the original tenant to petitioner No.2, who by closing the second shop, diminished the value and utility of the same. It has come on record that the premises in question were let out to petitioner No.1 for carrying out business in gur, however, the same was found to be occupied by petitioner No.2 where he runs the business of transport. Both the Courts below, on the strength of evidence led by the landlord, concurrently held that petitioner No.1, who originally took the shops in dispute on rent, subletted the same in favour of petitioner No.2, without the consent of the landlord. However, the petitioners made an attempt to show that Ashok Kumar-petitioner No.1 was also partner in the firm, being run by petitioner No.2 and as such no fresh tenancy was created, Civil Revision No. 6773 of 2011 2 but their version has been disbelieved by both the Courts below and the only document i.e. partnership deed (Ex.R1), so relied upon them was found to be a sham transaction, created only to frustrate the rights of the landlord because no other document in the shape of income tax return, bank account, sales tax etc., of M/s GS Roadlines was produced to corroborate the said plea of partnership firm. Rather, it has come into statement of landlord witnesses that Ashok Kumar-petitioner No.1 left the suit premises and started doing business elsewhere. Not only this, it has come on record that petitioner No.2 i.e. subletee used one of the shop and kept the second shop closed and thus, materially impaired the value and utility thereof. The findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, in absence of any good ground of valid reason, need not to be disturbed by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners has requested for some reasonable time to deliver the vacant possession of the shops in question to the landlord. It is directed that the petitioners shall hand over the vacant possession of the shops in question on or before 31.3.2012, subject to the payment of Rs. 650/- per month w.e.f 12.8.2010 till delivery of actual possession, besides payment of all the arrears within one month. The instant petition is accordingly disposed of. (ARVIND KUMAR) November 07,2011 JUDGE Jiten