Impleaded Sub-tenant is an “Aggrieved Person” Entitled to Revision, but Eviction Stands Absent Perversity: HP High Court on Subletting, Pleading Sufficiency, and Revisional Limits under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987

Introduction

In Ashok Kumar v. Dulari Kapil and Another (2025:HHC:31974), decided on 17 September 2025, the Himachal Pradesh High Court (per Satyen Vaidya, J.) dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (the Act), thereby affirming concurrent findings of subletting and consequent eviction. The case stems from an eviction petition initiated by the landlord (respondent no. 1) against the tenant (respondent no. 2) on two grounds: bona fide requirement and subletting of Shop No. 171, Ward No. 8, Gandhi Nagar, Hamirpur. While the Rent Controller allowed eviction solely on the ground of subletting, the Appellate Authority upheld that decision. The sub-tenant, Ashok Kumar (impleaded in the eviction petition), pursued the statutory appellate route and ultimately invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

Two clusters of issues dominated the revision: first, the maintainability of a revision by a sub-tenant when the tenant has chosen not to challenge the eviction; and second, whether the concurrent findings of subletting suffered from perversity or illegality warranting interference in revision, including the sufficiency of pleadings on the statutory ingredients of subletting. The High Court answered the first in favour of maintainability but concluded that the record revealed no perversity or legal error: the landlord discharged the initial onus of subletting, the tenant/sub-tenant failed to prove an independent tenancy in favour of the sub-tenant, and the pleading insufficiency argument did not merit reversal in the absence of prejudice.

Summary of the Judgment

Maintainability: A sub-tenant who was impleaded in the eviction proceedings is an “aggrieved person” and can maintain an appeal/revision even if the tenant does not. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Karam Singh Sobti v. Sri Pratap Chand, AIR 1964 SC 1305.
Revisional scope: Under Section 24(5) of the Act, the High Court does not sit as a second court of first appeal. Interference lies only for perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error, not to reappreciate evidence. The Court endorsed Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, and Patel Valmik Himatlal v. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai, AIR 1998 SC 3325.
Subletting proved: The landlord established exclusive occupation by the sub-tenant while the tenant had settled abroad. The tenant/sub-tenant failed to prove that the sub-tenant’s possession was referable to a lawful tenancy either with the previous owner (Dev Raj) or with the current landlord.
Evidence assessment: Alleged rent receipts in the sub-tenant’s favour were disbelieved due to non-production of originals, suspicious uniformity in dates across years, and the principle that mere proof of signatures does not prove the contents. Documentary and official records (telecom, shop, partnership registration) did not support the sub-tenant’s case.
Pleadings: Although the eviction petition did not expressly state that the subletting was “after commencement of the Act” and “without the landlord’s written consent” (the statutory language), the absence of specific pleading did not vitiate the proceedings. No prejudice was shown, the parties went to trial on the issue, and issues were framed. Virendra Kashinath Ravat v. Vinayak N. Joshi, AIR 1999 SC 162, governed; the earlier HP decision in Sham Sunder Mehra (1994 (2) RLR 9) could not be invoked to defeat the decree in these facts.
Outcome: The revision was dismissed; the eviction was affirmed; no order as to costs.

Factual Background and Procedural History

The demised premises is a shop in Gandhi Nagar, Hamirpur. The landlord claimed purchase of the shop from the previous owner, Dev Raj. The eviction petition alleged:

Bona fide personal requirement (subsequently not pressed in revision because the landlord did not appeal its rejection by the Rent Controller).
Subletting: The tenant had settled in Canada; the shop was under the exclusive occupation of the sub-tenant, Ashok Kumar, contrary to lease conditions.

The tenant filed a reply denying subletting but did not effectively contest thereafter. The sub-tenant filed a separate reply claiming that he was a direct tenant under the previous owner Dev Raj (and thereafter under the landlord), producing alleged rent receipts. The Rent Controller accepted subletting and ordered eviction; the Appellate Authority affirmed. The sub-tenant alone pursued further challenge via revision to the High Court under Section 24(5) of the Act.

Issues

Whether a sub-tenant impleaded in an eviction petition is an “aggrieved person” entitled to maintain a revision under Section 24(5) of the Act when the tenant has not challenged the eviction order.
The proper limits of revisional jurisdiction under Section 24(5) in rent control matters.
Whether the concurrent findings of subletting were perverse, illegal, or otherwise vitiated.
Whether the eviction petition was defective for want of specific pleadings that subletting was created “after commencement of the Act” and “without the written consent of the landlord” as required by Section 14(ii)(a), and, if so, whether such defect was fatal.

Court’s Analysis

1) Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Karam Singh Sobti and another v. Sri Pratap Chand and another, AIR 1964 SC 1305:
The Supreme Court held that when a decree is passed jointly against a tenant and sub-tenant, the sub-tenant has an independent right to appeal and seek reversal even if the tenant does not appeal. The Himachal Pradesh High Court applied this to hold that the sub-tenant, impleaded from inception, was an “aggrieved person” competent to maintain the statutory appeal and the subsequent revision. This directly countered the landlord’s maintainability objection.
Subhash Chand Aggarwal v. Murli Manohar Lal, 2000 (1) RCR 645 (Del):
This authority was invoked to reaffirm the general proposition that an eviction order against the tenant binds the sub-tenant unless the sub-tenant proves an independent tenancy directly under the landlord. The Court relied on this to emphasize that, having failed to establish a direct tenancy, the sub-tenant is bound by the eviction.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78:
The Supreme Court’s seminal restatement of the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction in rent control matters—revision is narrower than appeal; the High Court is not a second court of first appeal; reappreciation of evidence is generally impermissible—was quoted and applied. This framed the High Court’s approach to the sub-tenant’s challenge to concurrent findings.
Patel Valmik Himatlal v. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai, AIR 1998 SC 3325:
Reiterated that revisional power does not permit rehearing on facts or reappraisal of evidence absent error of law or material irregularity; a different plausible view on the evidence is not a ground to interfere. The High Court used this to reject the sub-tenant’s invitation to revisit factual findings (e.g., rent receipts).
Virendra Kashinath Ravat And Another v. Vinayak N. Joshi And Others, AIR 1999 SC 162:
On pleadings, the Supreme Court emphasized that Order VI Rules 2 and 5 CPC require concise statements of material facts, not evidentiary details; scanty pleadings can be cured by seeking better particulars; absence of specific particulars does not ipso facto defeat the claim, especially when issues are framed and parties go to trial without demur. The High Court leaned on this to hold that the lack of explicit statutory phrases in the eviction petition was not fatal absent demonstrated prejudice.
Sham Sunder Mehra v. Mastan Singh and others, 1994 (2) RLR 9 (HP):
This earlier High Court decision, emphasizing the necessity of pleading the statutory ingredients of subletting, was distinguished in effect through the application of Virendra Kashinath and the record’s posture (issues framed, no objection at the outset, full trial, no prejudice).

2) Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolds along four tracks:

Maintainability:
While a sub-tenant need not be a necessary party in an eviction petition based on subletting, once impleaded and subjected to a joint decree with the tenant, the sub-tenant is an “aggrieved party” in his own right. Following Karam Singh Sobti, the sub-tenant’s appeal/revision is maintainable, and the tenant’s choice not to appeal does not extinguish the sub-tenant’s appellate or revisional recourse.
Narrow revisional lens under Section 24(5):
The Court reiterated that it will not reweigh evidence or substitute its view for a plausible view taken by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. Interference is warranted only if the findings are perverse, illegal, or manifestly unjust—standards not met here. This set the tone for deference to the concurrent factual findings of subletting.
Subletting: burden and proof:
The landlord established that the tenant had settled in Canada and that the shop was in the exclusive possession of the sub-tenant. Evidence from official records (BSNL, AETC/partnership registers, and the Shop Inspector) showed no recognition of the sub-tenant as a tenant or partner. Witnesses corroborated the landlord’s narrative. This discharged the landlord’s initial onus to show parting with possession. The burden then shifted to the tenant/sub-tenant to show that the sub-tenant’s possession was referable to a direct tenancy under the landlord or previous owner, or justified by written consent as required by the Act.

The sub-tenant’s core defence—production of rent receipts allegedly issued by Dev Raj—was rejected for cogent reasons:
- Non-production of originals.
- Suspicious uniformity of dates across different years on the alleged receipts.
- Proof of signature, even if assumed, is not proof of the truth of contents.
With this defence disbelieved, and in the absence of other convincing evidence of a lawful tenancy, the concurrent finding of subletting stood on a firm footing. In line with Subhash Chand Aggarwal, the eviction decree against the tenant bound the sub-tenant who failed to establish an independent tenancy.
Pleading insufficiency and prejudice:
Section 14(ii)(a) of the Act contemplates eviction where, after the commencement of the Act and without the landlord’s written consent, the tenant transfers rights under the lease or sublets the whole or part of the premises. The eviction petition did not spell out in haec verba that the subletting occurred “after the commencement of the Act” and “without written consent.” Nevertheless:
- The pleadings clearly articulated subletting, the tenant’s absence abroad, and exclusive possession by the sub-tenant.
- Issues were framed on subletting; the parties went to trial; no early objection on pleadings was raised; and no prejudice was shown.
- The sub-tenant’s own case admitted the landlord’s purchase from Dev Raj and asserted a (failed) claim of a direct tenancy allegedly created in 2001—postdating the operative rent control regime—further undercutting any argument of uncertainty or surprise.
Guided by Virendra Kashinath and the procedural economy embedded in Order VI Rules 2 and 5 CPC, the Court held that any want of particularized pleading did not vitiate the decree in the absence of prejudice, especially where a full trial had addressed the substance of subletting.

3) Application to the Record

The Court refused to revisit credibility findings and evidentiary inferences drawn below. Specifically:

Testimony from the BSNL office showed telephone installation in the name of “Bagga & Company” since 31.08.1982; records from AETC suggested partnership composition not featuring the sub-tenant beyond 1985; and the Shop Inspector’s records did not list the sub-tenant.
Independent witnesses supported the landlord’s version of exclusive possession by the sub-tenant, with the tenant settled overseas.
The sub-tenant’s documentary defence (rent receipts allegedly issued by Dev Raj pre-purchase) collapsed under scrutiny for lack of originals and suspicious features; mere admission of signatures was insufficient to prove the contents and the tenancy relationship claimed.

On this bedrock, the High Court found no perversity or illegality, and hence no revisional warrant to interfere.

Impact and Significance

Maintainability clarified: When a landlord impleads a sub-tenant, that sub-tenant becomes an “aggrieved person” and may independently pursue appeals/revisions even if the tenant acquiesces. This avoids procedural traps and ensures that persons directly affected can test the decree.
Revisional restraint reaffirmed: The decision fortifies the boundary between appeal and revision under rent control statutes. Litigants should calibrate their strategy accordingly: mistakes of law or perversity can be corrected, but factual re-tries are out of bounds at the revisional stage.
Subletting—burden chronology: The case illustrates how landlords may prove subletting circumstantially (exclusive possession by a third party, tenant’s absence) and how the evidentiary burden shifts to the tenant/sub-tenant to justify possession. Sub-tenants must marshal robust, original, and credible documentary proof of lawful induction or consent.
Pleadings pragmatism: While precise statutory pleading is good practice, the Court signals that omissions are not automatically fatal where issues are joined, a full trial is held, and no prejudice is shown. This is a practical, justice-oriented approach consistent with Order VI CPC and Virendra Kashinath.
Eviction binds sub-tenant absent proof of direct tenancy: The judgment underscores that an eviction decree against the tenant will bind an occupier/sub-tenant unless the latter proves an independent tenancy under the landlord. This aligns with long-standing principles and discourages post hoc documentary contrivances.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Subletting: In rent law, subletting occurs when a tenant, without landlord’s written consent, parts with possession of the premises (wholly or partly) or assigns/ transfers lease rights to a third party. Exclusive possession by a third party typically raises a presumption of subletting or parting with possession, shifting the burden to the tenant to rebut it.
Exclusive possession: Not just physical presence; it is the right to possess, manage, and exclude others. If a person other than the tenant is shown to have exclusive possession and control, subletting/assignment is inferred unless lawfully explained.
“Aggrieved person”: A person whose rights are directly affected by an order. Here, a sub-tenant impleaded in the eviction petition and subjected to the eviction decree is aggrieved and may file appeal/revision even if the tenant does not.
Revisional vs. Appellate jurisdiction: An appeal allows re-hearing on facts and law; a revision is narrower—correcting jurisdictional errors, illegality, material irregularity, or perversity. Revisional courts generally avoid reappraising evidence unless the findings are perverse.
Perversity: A finding is perverse if no reasonable person, acting judicially, could have reached it on the evidence; or if material evidence is ignored/misread; or if the conclusion is speculative or contrary to recorded facts.
Order VI Rules 2 and 5 CPC: Pleadings must contain concise statements of material facts (not evidence). If particulars are lacking, courts can direct further and better particulars. Cases should not be dismissed purely for want of verbose or formulaic pleadings when issues have been framed and tried without prejudice.
Jurisdictional facts under Section 14(ii)(a): For eviction on subletting/assignment, the landlord must establish that the transfer/subletting occurred after the Act’s commencement and was without written consent. While best pleaded explicitly, these can be inferred from facts and proven at trial.

Guidance for Practitioners

Landlords should, where possible, plead the statutory ingredients verbatim (post-commencement, lack of written consent) and gather objective indicia of exclusive possession (utility records, licenses, inspectors’ records, third-party testimonies).
Tenants/sub-tenants should preserve original tenancy documents and contemporaneous receipts; proof of signature alone does not prove the contents. Fabrication indicators (e.g., uniform dates, missing originals) erode evidentiary value.
Where a sub-tenant is impleaded, counsel should anticipate maintainability and plan appeals/revisions accordingly, mindful that revisional scrutiny is narrow and focused on perversity or legal error.
Objections to pleading insufficiency should be raised at the earliest; otherwise, courts may apply Virendra Kashinath and proceed on the substance if issues were framed and tried without demonstrated prejudice.

Conclusion

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision in Ashok Kumar v. Dulari Kapil and Another crystallizes three practical propositions in rent control jurisprudence:

A sub-tenant, once impleaded and subjected to an eviction decree, is an “aggrieved person” who can maintain an appeal/revision independent of the tenant’s conduct (Karam Singh Sobti).
Revisional jurisdiction under Section 24(5) of the Act is tightly cabined; High Courts do not reweigh evidence or sit as second courts of first appeal (Hindustan Petroleum; Patel Valmik).
On subletting, once exclusive possession by a third party is shown, the evidentiary burden shifts; absence of cogent proof of a lawful tenancy is fatal to the sub-tenant. Pleading lacunae will not undo a decree where issues were tried fully and no prejudice is shown (Virendra Kashinath), and eviction against the tenant binds the sub-tenant who fails to prove an independent tenancy (Subhash Chand Aggarwal).

As a precedent, the ruling harmonizes procedural fairness (maintainability for impleaded sub-tenants) with substantive rigor (deference to concurrent findings, realistic pleading standards, and orthodox subletting tests). It will guide lower courts and counsel in structuring eviction pleadings, proof of subletting, and the limited ambit of revisional correction under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987.