AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 286 wordsJ.C. Gupta, J.—This is the writ petition against the order dated 11114987 passed by Respondent No. 1 allowing the revision and dismissing the suit of the petitionerlandlord.
Petitioner is the landlord of the shop in question. Respondent No. 2, Subhash Chandra is the tenant at the rate of Rs. 120 per month. According to the petitioner, Respondent No. 3 is the subtenant. Petitioner filed a suit on the ground that the tenant has sublet the property without the permission of the landlord and has made material alteration. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the tenant Subhash Chandra had sublet the premises to Dilshad. He has also held that the rate of rent for subletting is Rs. 35 per month. So far as the other question is concerned the trial Court have recorded a finding that constructions have been made but they have not diminished the utility of the building but in view of the finding of subtenancy be decreed the suit. Aggrieved by his order the tenant filed a revision. This revision has been allowed. Hence the present writ petition. The finding given by the trial Court on the ground of subtenancy is finding of fact, it was given after considering the evidence on record. There was no illegality in the same. It could not be interfered in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The order passed by respondent No. 2 6n 11111987 is illegal and liable to be quashed and the order of the trial Court is restored for the eviction of the petitioner. However, Respondent be not evicted for a period of six months.
The writ petition is allowed.