Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Eviction in Subletting Dispute

Court dismisses revision petition challenging eviction order over subletting and arrears of rent.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Satyen Vaidya, has dismissed a revision petition in a tenancy dispute, affirming eviction orders based on allegations of subletting and non-payment of rent. The case, Usha Chaudhary & others vs. Raj Prakash, revolved around a shop in Shimla's Lower Chakkar area, originally rented to Sh. Shrawan Chaudhary. After his demise, the tenancy rights were inherited by Usha Chaudhary and others, who were accused of subletting the premises to a third party without the landlord's consent.

The landlord, Raj Prakash, initiated eviction proceedings under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, alleging that the tenants had illegally sublet the property. The Rent Controller found that a partnership deed presented by the tenants, purportedly establishing a business partnership with the sub-tenant, was a mere camouflage to mask the subletting arrangement. The Controller also noted substantial arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 5,23,994/-.

On appeal, the Appellate Authority upheld the Rent Controller's findings, confirming the sub-tenancy and arrears of rent. The tenants and the sub-tenant challenged this decision in the High Court, which concluded that the partnership deed did not alter the subletting facts as evidenced by the control and possession of the premises by the sub-tenant.

During the proceedings, it was revealed that the tenants had agreed to hand over possession to the landlord, leading to the dismissal of their appeal. The High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, emphasized that it could not reappraise evidence or act as a second appellate court unless there was perversity or material illegality in the lower courts' findings.

The judgment reaffirms the principle that sub-tenants cannot challenge eviction orders unless they can substantiate their claims with credible evidence. This decision underscores the legal stance on subletting under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction in such matters.

Bottom Line:

Subletting of premises - A partnership deed executed to camouflage the landlord-tenant relationship does not alter the legal relationship if the sub-tenant is found to have control and possession of the premises for consideration.

Statutory provision(s): Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, Section 14

Usha Chaudhary v. Raj Prakash, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2790617