BAKHTAWAR SINGH Vs. GURDEV SINGH ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The High court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the revision petition of the appellant in limine, confirming the judgment and order of the appellate authority, passed under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The dispute between the parties arose like this.

(3.) The demised premises is a shop which stood rented out to the first respondent by a joint Hindu family, the Karta of which was Gurbax Singh, one of the four brothers, the second respondent. The Karta used to receive ren from the first respondent. On 23/2/1982, a memorandum recording past partition as prepared by the brothers through a lawyer and the appellant herein was acknowledged to have got this shop in his share. Thereafter, he issued a notice on 1/1/1986 to the respondent staling that w. e. f. 1/3/1982 he was the landlord and that the rent at the rate of Rs. 50. 00 per month, as orally enhanced mutually, be paid to him. That notice was not responded to by the first respondent though itsreceipt is not disputed. In this situation, the appellant on 25/2/1986 filed and ejectment application on two grounds, namely, (i) non-payment of rent since 1/3/1982 @ Rs. 50. 00 per month; and (ii) closure of the rented shop since 1/10/1985 and sub-letting of the same to one Mohinder Singh. The ejectment was disputed by both the respondents by filing separate but supportive written statements on 19-5-1986 contending that up-to-date rent (without specifying the date) at the rate of Rs. 28. 00 per month, as originally fixed, stood paid by the first respondent to Gurbax Singh, second respondent. On the other ground, it was stated that there was no sub-letting. The Rent Controller, Moga, after examining the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the rent fixed was Rs. 28. 00 per month which did not stood enhanced to Rs. 50. 00 per month, and since the same stood paid by the first respondent to the second respondent, the tenant was not in arrears of rent. The relationship of the appellant and the first respondent after service of notice dated 1/1/1986 was omitted to be pronounced upon. On the ground of sub-letting, the Rent Controller was in favour of the landlord and so herdered eviction. On appeal to the appellate authority, the order of the Rent Controller was reversed by affirming the decision on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and by upsetting the decision on ground of sub-letting holding that in the absence of Mohinder Singh, the alleged sub-lessee, as party to the proceedings, no ejectment order could be passed. The High court, as said before, dismissed the revision petition of the appellant in limine.