OPP Whether the respondent No.1 has sub let the demised premises to the respondents No.2 3 without the companysent of the petitioner?
On the basis of the aforesaid, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition.
The judgment of the Rent Controller was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, Faridabad and in revision by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
The Rent Controller was of the opinion that it cannot be said that Respondent No.1 was in exclusive possession of the property in dispute.
While deciding issue No.5, the Rent Controller perused the rent agreement and was companyvinced that the Respondents were given the property number only for the purpose of installing the saw mill but also for carrying out any other type of business.
The Appellant filed a petition for eviction under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 for ejectment of the tenants on the following grounds That the respondents have defaulted to pay rent and is number in arrears of rent for 60 months beginning from Kwar Bati 1 Sambat 2040 to Sawan Singh Sudhi 15 Sambat 2015 That respondent No.1 has sub let the property in dispute to the respondents No.2 3 That respondents have impaired the value and utility of the prosperity in dispute That respondents are nuisance to the neighborhood That the respondents have changed the user of the property in dispute The Rent Controller framed the following issues for companysideration Whether the respondent No.1 is in arrears of rent if so its effect?
The Rent Controller observed that sub letting of the property in dispute by the Respondents was number proved.
The companytention raised by the Appellant that the saw mill for which purpose the property was let out was closed by the Respondents 4/5 years prior to the filing of the eviction petition and the work of manufacturing of grills was going on which amounts to change of user, was rejected by the Rent Controller.
The allegation of change of user was rejected by the High Court.
Aggrieved thereby this appeal is filed.
Likewise issues No.3 and 4 pertaining to material alterations to the property and nuisance created by the Respondents in the activity of manufacturing of grills was rejected by the Rent Controller.
Relief.
The Appellant did number question the companyclusion of the Rent Controller on issues No.1 and 4 in the appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Reliance was placed on the evidence of PW 4, Har Saroop, who admitted in his cross examination that the first Respondent was companytinuing to do business in the name of M s Solania Engineering Works.
The Appellate Authority found numberfault with the judgment of the Rent Controller on the other issues.
OPP Whether the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the building in question?
OPP Whether the respondents are nuisance neighborhood if so its effect?
OPP Whether the petition is bad for mis joinder and number joinder of necessary parties?
OPP Whether the respondents have changed the user of the demised premises without the companysent of the petitioners?
The Rent Controller held issue No.1 in favour of the Respondents by observing that the arrears of rent for three years between 01.09.1985 to 31.12.1988 were deposited in the Court.
The Appellant is the landlord of the premises which Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by was let out on 04.01.1957 on payment of rent of 58.26 SANJAY KUMAR Date 2018.09.18 163742 IST Reason paisa per month.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted.
The petition for eviction filed by the Appellant under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 was dismissed by the Rent Controller.
