ROSHAN LAL Vs. MUNSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Munshi Ram and Kidar Nath landlords of the property in dispute which is a shop situated-in Hariana, tehsil and district Hoshiarpur, filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against Ram Lal Roshan Lal and Pawan Kumar, with the allegation that the shop in question was let out to Ram Lal on February 20, 1959 on a monthly rent of Rs. 11/- and Ram Lal aforesaid also executed a Rent note in favour of the landlords as evidence of the transaction. It is alleged by the landlords that Ram Lal was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 322/- up to December 20, 1970 and he had also not paid house tax for eleven years at the rate of Rs. 10.80/- per year, as per agreement between the parties. They further alleged that Ram Lal had sublet the shop to Roshan Lal; and Pawan Kumar without the consent of the landlords and these person were running their business in the shop. The landlords, therefore, prayed that all these three persons be ordered to be ejected from the shop.

(2.) The above application was resisted by the two petitioners Roshan Lal and Pawan Kumar as also Ram Lal who had executed the Rent Note. The arrears of rent including interest and costs were tendered on the first date of hearing which were accepted by the landlords with the objection that they recognised only Ram Lal as a tenant and not the other two sub-tenants. In so far as the tenants are concerned, they took up the stand that the shop in question was leased to Roshan Lal from the very beginning and he is in possession of the same uptil now paying a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. It was stated that Pawan Kumar petitioner is the son of Roshan Lal petitioner and is helping his father in the shop. As regards Ram Lal, it is alleged that he was never in possession of the shop but he was only shown as a tenant in the Rent Note in order to secure due receipt of the rent from the petitioners. As already stated, according to the petitioners the agreed rent is Rs. 10/- and not Rs. 11/- as mentioned in the Rent Note.

(3.) After framing the necessary issue and allowing the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions, the Rent Controller considered the matter and accepted the plea of the tenants. The ejectment application was, therefore, dismissed. The landlords, however, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority who reversed the decision of the Rent Controller and ordered the eviction of the tenants who were, however, given one months time to vacate the premises. The present Revision petition has now been filed by Roshan Lal and his son Pawan Kumar and Ram Lal, the lessee in the Rent note has been arrayed as a respondent in the petition.