FAQIR CHAND Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by Raj Kumar respondent No. 1, for the eviction of his tenant Faqir Chand petitioner from the premises which is Shop No. 2349/8 grounds on which eviction was prayed were, non-payment of rent, sub-letting and material impairment of the value and utility of the building. The Rent Controller, after considering the evidence produced by both the parties which is more in the nature of oral evidence of witnesses, directed the eviction of the tenant on the ground of his sub-letting the premises to Radhe Sham respondent No. 2. The tenant went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority, but failed to achieve success in that Court. He has now come up in Revision to this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to the objections raised at the trial that there was no valid notice issued to the tenant before filing the ejectment application. That objection is no longer available in view of the latest Full Bench decision of this Court reported as Shri Vinod Kumar v. Harbans Singh Azad, 1977 1 RCJ 236 wherein it was held that notice is not necessary to be issued in proceedings for ejectment under the Act. Another argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Courts below had not relied upon the evidence of the witnesses produced by the tenant-petitioner that there had been no sub-letting and, in fact, respondent No. 2 was only his nephew who was helping him in his business. The evidence on the record, however, makes it amply clear that the business which is being done in the shop is of manufacture and sale of Ice Cream and this business is admittedly owned by Radhe Sham respondent No. 2. The petitioner is not shown to be a partner in that business. As such, it was for the petitioner to show as to how Radhe Sham respondent No. 2 was running the business in the premises. In the absence of this fact, the only presumption is that the tenant had made alterations in the premises and had sublet the same to respondent No. 2, which is a sufficient ground for eviction of the petitioner from the shop. Besides, both the Authorities below have come to a concurrent finding that the tenant had sublet the premises to respondent No. 2 and this Court would be loath to interfere in revision against this finding of fact.

(3.) The result is that the Revision Petition is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.