IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.6968 of 2008 Date of Decision: 29.7.2010 Jai Narain. ....... Petitioner through Nemo. Versus Shiv Kumar and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 to 3 through Shri Rajinder Goyal, Advocate. Respondent no.4 ex parte. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition has been preferred against judgment dated 31.10.2008 of the Appellate Authority, Kurukshetra vide which the appeal of respondent nos. 1 to 3 directed against judgment dated 12.1.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Pehowa was accepted and the petitioner as well as respondent no.4 were ordered to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord. An application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act,1973 was filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 for ejectment of the petitioner and respondent no.4 from the demised premises. It was pleaded that the demised premises was let out to the petitioner, but he C.R.No.6968 of 2008 -2- .... has shifted to Panipat and has sub-let the same in favour of respondent no.4. The petitioner contested the ejectment application, whereas respondent no.4 did not appear despite service of notice and hence, he was proceeded ex parte. In his reply, the petitioner, although admitted that he had shifted to Panipat, yet, pleaded that the demised premises was still in his possession. He also refuted the allegation of sub-letting. The Rent Controller framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from the tenanted premises on the ground mentioned in para no.4 of the petition? 2. Whether the petitioner has concealed the true facts from the court? 3. Relief. After appreciating the evidence led by the parties, the Rent Controller declined the prayer of respondent nos. 1 to 3, but in appeal, his findings were reversed by the Appellate Authority which has led to the filing of the instant petition. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner despite the fact that the case was shown in the warning list. Even on the last date of hearing,no one had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and have perused the impugned judgment, as also the record. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 had categorically pleaded that the petitioner- tenant had shifted to Panipat and had given the demised premises C.R.No.6968 of 2008 -3- .... to his brother – respondent no.4 where the latter was running his own business. In his response, the petitioner had admitted the factum of his having shifted to Panipat, but claimed that the demised premises was in his own possession. The question, therefore, remains to be decided was as to whether the petitioner was in possession of the demised premises. If the material on record is to be seen, then it transpires that the demised premises are being used for business purposes. The petitioner had not pleaded that he is running the business in the demised premises or that the business was joint with respondent no.4. In the absence of such pleading or evidence, it is not conceivable that the petitioner was still in possession of the demised premises despite the fact that he had shifted to Panipat. During the course of proceedings, Shri Ajay Poonia, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner by the Rent Controller and he stepped into witness box as AW5 and proved his report as EX-A15. The report of the Local Commissioner is unambiguous and this coupled with his testimony conclusively proves that respondent no.4 was in possession of demised premises and who was running business therein with the assistance of his son. There is, thus, no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner was not in possession of the demised premises after having shifted to Panipat and that he had permitted his brother – respondent no.4 to operate therefrom which was totally contrary to the arrangement of tenancy between him and the landlords. In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the findings C.R.No.6968 of 2008 -4- .... recorded by the Appellate Authority as sub-letting stood proof which is a recognised ground for seeking eviction of a tenant. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and the revision petition is dismissed. The petitioner as well as respondent no.4 shall immediately hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlords. July 29,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge