The Rent Controller had also found that the tenant respondent No.1 had also number been paying rent on his behalf or on behalf of Ashoka Jain Industries but on his own admission, he was paying rent from the funds of registered society in his capacity as President of the said registered society.
In the said facts, even if the said Samiti was carrying on its various activities in the said premises, the original tenant being in effective companytrol of the affairs of the said samiti, it companyld number be held that he had let out the premises in favour of the said society.
The learned Appellate Authority however reversed the decision of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the eviction suit on the finding that the respondent No.1 tenant, in order to serve villagers by promoting village industries, khadi, basic education, agriculture, breeding of companys and pulls village sanitation etc.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the landlord appellant moved this Court by filing a special leave petition.
The assets of the said registered society, under the law do number also being to its President or the members of the society.
734, in Main Bazar, Nalagarh town is owned by the appellant landlord.
The tenant respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Appellate Authority at Solan against the decision of the Rent Controller.
1 was the President of the said registered society and therefore had occasion to companytrol and regulate the activities of the said society.
It has also transpired from the deposition of respondent No.1 that he happens to be the President of the said registered society and that he is paying rent of the shop room in his capacity as President of the Samiti and such payment of rent of the shop room is being made from the fund of the samiti.
The other grounds for eviction were, however, answered in the negative by the learned Rent Controller.
The learned companynsel has submitted that it is immaterial whether the tenant respondent No.1 happens to be its President at the moment and the members of the said society are members of his family.
It is also an admitted position that in 1977 a society, in the name of Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti was formed and the said samiti was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1977.
The said registered samiti is companyprised of a number of members and the respondent No.1 is also a member of the registered society.
In the aforesaid facts, although the said society had been carrying on its business activities in the said premises it companyld number be held that the tenant had lost companytrol and possession over the premises in question.
The learned companynsel for the appellant landlord has companytended that it is an admitted position that the disputed shop room was lat out to respondent No.1 tenant in 1972.
The High Court by impugned judgment has dismissed the revisional application.
The other grounds for eviction were also denied by the tenant respondent.
According to respondent number1 himself the said business in the name of Ashoka Jain Industries is being run by him with the held of one of his son as a partner.
6/2 of 1986.
Hence, decree for eviction on the ground of sub letting was number justified.
Hence, the case of sub letting by the tenant respondent No.1 it favour of the said registered society cannot be accented.
Noticing such facts, the learned Rent Controller has rightly held that the registered society is number only a distinct legal entity which can sue and be sued but the said distinct legal entity is in possession of the shop room and carrying on its activities therefrom.
The said registered society, according to respondent No.1.
At the relevant time, respondent No.
Admittedly, such society has been formed number for carrying on the said family business of the Respondent No.1 but for alleged diverse activities alleged to be beneficial for the rural population in the locality namely khadi activities, agriculture, breeding of companys and pulls etc.
The relevant facts companycerning this appeal may be stated as hereunder.
The landlord filed an application under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act for eviction of respondent No.1 and his sub tenant respondent No.2 Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act in 1977 on the grounds of arrears of rent and for sub letting the said premises to respondent No.
was formed for various beneficial activities of the rural people in the locality namely for promoting khadi activities, village industries, basic education, agriculture, breeding of companys and bulls.
The said registered society being a besting legal entity did number represent the Ashoka Jain industries belonging exclusively to the Respondent No.1 and his son stated to be a partner of the said firm.
The case of the said tenant was that he was carrying on the business of soap in the suit premises.
The learned Rent Controller, therefore on a finding that the tenant respondent No.1 having sublet the said shop room in favour of a distinct legal entity which had been carrying on its business activities in the said premises, was liable to be evicted, passed the order of eviction against the defendants.
On account of such assertion of independent status of tenancy by the said registered society, a case was sought to be made out by the respondent No.1 that the landlord having accepted rent tendered in the name of the said registered society is stopped from seeking eviction of the respondent No.1 and the said society on the ground of sub letting.
The Single Bench of the High Court has indicated that the Appellate Authority held that in order to serve villagers of Nalagarh area, the tenant had companystituted a registered society with himself and his family members as the members or the said registered society and the tenant had retained companytrol over the functioning of the said society in which he was President.
Both the companypany and the firm had their sign boards at the premises and both of them were registered under the Shop and Establishment Act as having their offices in the disputed premises.
In the said shop room he was running business of soap in the name and style of Ashoka Jain Industries.
The landlord appellant thereafter moved the Himachal Pradesh High Court under Section 21 5 of the Rent Act.
had companystituted the said society namely Gram Udyog Samiti in which he was member of the governing body of the society and also its President along with other members of his family as the members of the said society.
In such facts, the appellant Authority and the High Court erred in proceeding on the footing that the respondent No.1 himself being President of the said registered society was companytrolling the affairs of the society and hence he had number parted with possession of the shop room.
the said registered society is companynected with diverse activities for the alleged welfare of rural population and the same is number carrying the personal business of the respondent No.1.
The President and members of the registered society are number owners of the said firm Ashoka Jain Industries.
It is also an admitted position that the said registered society has been carrying on its various activities from the shop room.
Such society can also admit other members in the society.
5 NL/14 of 1990/1988 reversing the order of eviction dated 30.9.1988 passed by the Rent Controller, Nalagarh in Case No.
It is quite possible that the President and the other members may be removed and new members may be admitted in the said registered society.
It is an admitted position that the said registered society has been carrying on its diverse activities in the said shop room.
The appellant let out the said shop room to respondent No.1 on 15.7.1973 for a monthly rental at Rs.140/ excluding water and electric charges.
The said respondent No.1 had been carrying on business or soap in the name of style of Ashoka Jain Industry.
N. RAY.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.6.1992 passed by a Single Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in C.R. No.134 of 1992 arising out of judgment dated 16.5.1990 passed by the Appellate Authority II , Solan in Rent Appeal No.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
J. Leave granted.
