Himachal Pradesh High Court: The present revision petition was filed by the sub-tenant under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (‘Rent Act’) assailing the order of the Appellate Authority, Hamirpur whereby the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was upheld. A Single Judge Bench of Satyen Vaidya, J., while dismissing the revision petition, held that since the sub-tenant had failed to establish his tenancy under the previous landlord, he was bound by the eviction order issued against the tenant.
Background:
The landlord had purchased the shop from the previous owner, who had originally let it out to the tenant on a monthly rent with the condition that the tenant would not sub-let or create a partnership therein. The landlord submitted that the tenant had settled in Canada, and the shop was thereafter in exclusive occupation of the sub-tenant. The tenant, however, denied the allegation of having sub-let the shop. The sub-tenant claimed to be in in occupation of the shop as the tenant of the predecessor-in-interest of the landlord and had been paying rent to the previous owner. The allegation of sub-letting was clearly denied, and it was stated that the sub-tenant was the tenant under previous owner and thereafter under the landlord.
The landlord filed a petition against the sub-tenant to evict him from the shop on the ground that it was required by the landlord for bona fide use and that the tenant had sub-let the premises to the sub-tenant. The landlord examined a witness from the office of SDO (Phones) BSNL, who deposed that Telephone No. 224431 was installed in the name of Bagga and Company since 31-08-1982. Another witness from AETC stated that Bagga and Company was a partnership which was registered in the name of the tenant in 1985. There was no registration in the name of the sub-tenant. The Shop Inspector also stated that the sub-tenant’s name did not appear in his records in respect of the shop. Even the previous owner’s son was examined as a witness by the landlord to establish that the sub-tenant was not inducted as a tenant by the previous owner.
The Rent Controller had allowed the petition only on the ground of sub-letting and concluded that the tenant had sub-let the shop to the sub-tenant and the Rent Controller’s order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The landlord did not assail the Rent Controller’s order insofar as the ground of personal bona fide requirement was rejected. Aggrieved by the eviction order, the sub-tenant filed the present revision petition.
The landlord’s counsel objected to the maintainability of revision petition by a sub-tenant, contending that the revision petition under Section 24(5) of the Rent Act could be filed by an aggrieved party and since the tenant had accepted the verdict, the sub-tenant could not be considered as an aggrieved party.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the landlord had filed the eviction petition by impleading the tenant and the sub-tenant as party respondents. The sub-tenant filed the statutory appeal to the Appellate Authority under Section 24 of the Rent Act and at that stage the landlord did not appear to have an objection as to the maintainability of the petition by a sub-tenant. The Court opined that the sub-tenant was not a necessary party to an eviction petition on the ground of sub-letting. The eviction order against the tenant bound even the sub-tenant, but since in the instant case the landlord herself had impleaded sub-tenant as a party, it could not be said that the sub-tenant was not the aggrieved party. Thus, the objection raised on behalf of the landlord could not be sustained.
The Court emphasised that the Courts, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Rent Act, would not sit as a Court of Appeal. The findings of fact recorded concurrently by the Original and Appellate Court could not be normally interfered with except in cases where perversity or absolute illegality was found to have been committed. Similarly, the re-appraisal of evidence in revisional jurisdiction was not permissible. The Revisional Court also could not substitute its view for the view taken by the Original and Appellate Court if the same was found to be a possible one.
The Court referred to Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, wherein the Supreme Court observed that “the expression revision was meant to convey the idea of a much narrower jurisdiction than that conveyed by the expression appeal”. The Court also referred to Patel Valmik Himatlal v. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai, (1998) 7 SCC 383, where the Supreme Court held that “the High Court could correct errors which might make the decision contrary to law and which errors go to the root of the decision but it did not vest the High Court with the power to re-hear the matter and re-appreciate the evidence”.
The Court noted that the sub-tenant’s counsel could not point out any perversity or absolute illegality in the findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. Instead, he focused solely on the previous owner’s son’s alleged admission that his father’s signature appeared on rent receipts issued to the sub-tenant before the landlord purchased the said premises. The Rent Controller disbelieved this claim because the original receipts were never produced, similar dates appeared on receipts from different years, and the signatures were proved without proof of the contents of the document. The Court agreed with the reasoning of the Rent Controller.
The Court further noted that the landlord had not specifically pleaded that the sub-tenancy had been created after commencement of the Act and the same was without the written consent of the landlord. In the replies filed by the tenant and sub-tenant, no objection as to insufficiency of pleadings was taken. The eviction petition was filed in 2009, whereas the Rent Act had been in promulgation since 1971. Though, the sub-tenant had not specifically pleaded as to when he was inducted as tenant by the previous owner, but it was tried to be established that the year of such induction was 2001. The Court opined that the tenant could not validly challenge the eviction order on mere technical grounds. The Court referred to Virendra Kashinath Ravat v. Vinayak N. Joshi, (1999) 1 SCC 47, wherein it was held that “no suit should be dismissed merely on the ground that more particulars were not stated in the pleadings and this must not be a premise on which interference by the High Court could be made in exercising a jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution”.
The Court found no perversity in the findings of the fact recorded by the Original and Appellate Court and while dismissing the revision petition, held that since the sub-tenant had failed to establish his tenancy directly under the previous landlord, the eviction against the tenant would bind him and the Court would not interfere with the impugned order.
[Ashok Kumar v. Dulari Kapil, Civil Revision No.72 of 2018, decided on 17-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Deepak Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ashwani K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ishan Sharma, Advocate.
