It was found, as a fact, that appellant No.2 was working in his capacity as a Manager for rendering assistance to run the business to appellant No.1.
Respondent landlord filed an eviction petition against the appellants under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 hereinafter the Act seeking eviction of the tenant from a shop situate in Moti Bazar, Muhalla Suhra, Mandi Town, H.P. According to the allegations made in the eviction petition the demised premises had been let out to Shri Hira lal Sehgal, husband of appellant No.1.
2 was helping appellant No.1 and managing her business for and on her behalf.
The keys of the shop are kept by me, the same are handed over by me in the morning for opening the shop.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
It was alleged that appellant No.1 thereafter sublet the premises to appellant No.2, Ravinder Kapur and that in the demised premises business was being run by appellant No.
1 became the statutory tenant of the premises on his death.
Shri Hira Lal Sehgal, died on 23rd February, 1983 and appellant No.
Ejectment of the appellants was ordered.
2 though for the advantage of both the appellants.
It was maintained that appellant No.2 who is the son of the sister of late Shri Hira Lal Sehgal had been brought up by late Shri Hira Lal Sehgal and that appellant No.2 was helping late Shri Hira Lal Sehgal in running his business at the demised shop till his death in 1983 and that after his death, appellant No.
I am tenant of the shop.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court on 19th September, 1996, dismissed the revision petition thereby companyfirming the order of the appellate authority.
On 18th January, 1989, the appeal was accepted and the order of the Rent Controller was set aside.
During the cross examination he replied In the disputed shop.
During the cross examination, appellant No.1 stated that monthly payments towards expenses were made to Ravinder by her by way of salary.
Appellant No.2 appeared as No.2 appeared as RW.2 before the trial companyrt.
Aggrieved by the order of the trial companyrt, the landlord respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority under the Act.
The landlord respondent also examined Shri B.C. Gupta, the Shop Inspector as PW.4.
She reiterated during the cross examination, I am number looking after the business.
The Shop Inspector produced the summoned record and on the basis thereof deposed that Ravinder Kapur appellant No.2 was the Manager of the shop and that his name appeared in their records only as the Manager of the shop.
This is a tenants appeal by special leave.
The trial companyrt after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties vide judgment and recording evidence of the parties vide judgment and order dated 20th March, 1986 dismissed the eviction petition and held that the landlord had failed to prove that appellant No.1 had at any stage parted with the possession of the disputed premises after the death of her husband or that she had sublet the same to appellant No.2.
The above statement was number at all questioned in the cross examination, It has remained unrebutted.
He further admitted that he had number found out as to for whose benefit the business was.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
The appellants filed a joint reply to the eviction petition and denied sub letting.
In his examination in chief, he inter alia asserted that appellant No.1 is the tenant and that the business is also heres and that the was number paying any rent to her and was only assisting her in her business.
The order of the appellate authority was challenged by the appellants through a civil revision petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
This, neither the landlord number PW.4 supported the case of sub letting in the evidence.
