RANJIV PAUL SINGH Vs. MEHANGA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Kapurthala. dated 9th of August, 1976, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the tenant was set aside.

(2.) The landlord-petitioner sought the ejectment of his tenant from the shop in dispute on the ground of subletting. It was pleaded in the ejectment application that the tenant respondent sub-let a substantial portion to Hari Ram, who carried on a business of a barber in the said sub-let portion possessed and occupied by him (Hari Ram) This was done contrary to the terms and conditions of the tenancy without any written permission of the applicant and without his knowledge In the written statement filed thereto, it was stated that the tenant never sub-let any portion of the shop, in dispute, to Shri Hari Ram. Moreover, it was further pleaded that Hari Ram was a necessary party to the ejectment application and, in his absence, the application is not maintainable. Another ground of ejectment as to the change of user was also taken and it was stated that the tenant, quite contrary to the original specific purpose and kind of business of carrying on the cycle repairs in the said shop. as agreed upon between the parties at the inception of the tenancy which he was not entitled to change, ceased to carry on the said business and started dumping his unnecessary junk in the said little portion of the shop remaining with him after the said sub-letting. He further pleaded that the tenant has now started the business of stove repairing in the shop and thus he changed the nature and kind of user to the shop from original one without the knowledge and consent of the landlord In the written statement in reply thereto, it was stated that the tenant is carrying on his business as usual in the said shop and he has neither changed to any other business nor ceased to carry on in the shop. The shop was never taken on rent for the specific purpose of carrying on cycle-repair business. The tenant was at liberty to carry on such business as he thought proper. The tenant is carrying on his business of cycle-repairs and gas-repairs etc.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-