D.P. Wadhwa JUDGMENT
1. This is a tenant's appeal by special leave. Respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the appellants Under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter 'the Act') seeking eviction of the tenant from a shop situate in Moti Bazar, Muhalla Suhra, Mandi Town, H.P. According to the allegations made in the eviction petition the demised premises had been let out to Shri Hira Lal Sehgal, husband of appellant No. 1. Shri Hira Lal Sehgal, died on 23.02.1983 and appellant No. 1 became the statutory tenant of the premises on his death. It was alleged that appellant No. 1 thereafter sublet the premises to appellant No. 2, Ravinder Kapur and that in the demised premises business was being run by appellant No. 2 though for "the advantage of both the appellants". The appellants filed a joint reply to the eviction petition and denied sub-letting. It was maintained that appellant No. 2 who is the son of the sister of late Shri Hira Lal Sehgal had been brought up by late Shri Hira Lal Sehgal and that appellant No. 2 was helping late Shri Hira Lal Sehgal in running his business at the demised shop till his death in 1983 and that after his death, appellant No. 2 was helping appellant No. 1 and managing her business 'for and on her behalf. The trial court after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties vide judgment and order dated 20.03.1986 dismissed the eviction petition and held that the landlord had failed to prove that appellant No. 1 had at any stage parted with the possession of the disputed premises after the death of her husband or that she had sublet the same to appellant No. 2. It was found, as a fact, that appellant No. 2 was working in his capacity as a Manager for rendering assistance to run the business to appellant No. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the landlord-respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority under the Act.
2. On 18.01.1989, the appeal was accepted and the order of the Rent Controller was set aside. Ejectment of the appellants was ordered. The order of the appellate authority was challenged by the appellants through a civil revision petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. A learned Single Judge of the High Court on 19.09.1996, dismissed the revision petition thereby confirming the order of the appellate authority. Hence this appeal by special leave.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. For what follows, the appellate authority committed an error not only in the appreciation of evidence but also by mis-reading the evidence and assuming the existence of certain facts which were neither alleged nor proved. The High Court also fell into a similar error.
5. Section 14(2)(ii) of the Act provides that a landlord may evict his tenant by applying to the Controller, where the tenant has, after the commencement of the Act, without the written consent of the landlord transferred his rights under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof.
6. In the petition filed Under Section 14 of the Act by the respondent-landlord it was inter alia stated in paragraph 16 that :-
"The whole of the premises have been subletted to respondent ........