TIRATH RAM GUPTA Vs. GURUBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal by Special Leave is by a landlord and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No. 907 of 1977. In an eviction suit filed under S. 13, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the 'Act') against the tenant and the sub-tenant (respondents 2 and 1 respectively) in respect of two premises, there was a compromise between the landlord and the tenant and in terms thereof the Rent Controller decreed the eviction of the first respondent from the premises sub-leased to him. An appeal to the Appellate Authority proved of no avail and hence the first respondent filed Civil Revision No. 907 of 1977 under S. 15(5) of the Act to the High Court. The High Court allowed the revision holding that no order of eviction can be passed under S. 13(2) of the Act as the sub-tenancy had been created before the Act came into force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh were the property is situate. The High Court's order is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts requiring notice may now be seen. The appellant/landlord let out in the first instance, a shop-cum-flat No. 7 to the second respondent in 1963 and subsequently in 1967 he leased out the adjoining two flats also to him. The second respondent sub-let the two flats to the first respondent. It is common ground that the sub-letting was long prior to 4-11-1972 when the Act came into force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

(3.) On March 8, 1973 the appellant filed a suit and sought eviction of both the respondents on various grounds but all of them except the ground of unauthorised subletting were given up. The petition was contested by both the respondents. However, at the stage of arguments the appellant and the second respondent entered into a compromise between themselves and in terms thereof the appellant gave up his claim for eviction of the second respondent from the shop-cum-flat in his occupation. Thereafter the second respondent conceded that he had sub-let the two flats to the first respondent without the consent of the appellant and hence an order of eviction confined to the two flats sub-leased to the first respondent may follow. An appeal to the Appellate Authority having failed the first respondent filed a revision to the High Court under S. 15(5) of the Act and succeeded in having the order of eviction set aside.