Sub-Tenant Bound By Eviction Order If He Fails To Establish Direct Tenancy Under Landlord's Predecessor-In-Interest: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that if the sub-tenant fails to establish direct tenancy under landlord or predecessor-in-interest, the eviction order passed against tenant would be binding on them as well.
Justice Satyen Vaidya remarked that: “The sub-tenant was not a necessary party to an eviction petition on the ground of sub-letting, 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.”
The dispute arose when the landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises had been illegally sublet by the tenant to the petitioner.
Even though the landlord's plea of personal bona fide requirement was rejected by the rent controller, the eviction petition was allowed on the ground of subletting. This decision was upheld by the appellate authority.
Thereafter, the sub-tenant, who is the petitioner in this case, filed Revision Petition under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Urban Rent Control Act,1987 challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, Hamirpur whereby the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was upheld.
The sub-tenant contended that he was a direct tenant under the previous owner and therefore became a direct tenant under the landlord and had been paying rent to the previous owner.
In response, the landlord contended that the revision petition filed by the tenant was not maintainable as 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.
Rejecting the contention of the landlord, the Court remarked that since she herself had impleaded the subtenant as a party, he had the right to file a revision petition.
The Court rejected the sub-tenant's reliance on alleged rent receipts, noting that the original receipts were never produced, and identical dates appeared on different years' receipts. It held that proving signatures alone without proving contents was insufficient.
Thus, the Court held that “since the sub-tenant had failed to establish his tenancy directly under the landlord, the eviction against the tenant will bind him.”
Case Name: Ashok Kumar v/s Dusha Kapil & another
Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 72 of 2018
Date of Decision: 17.09.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.