(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the landlady against the older of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dated December 24, 1988, reversing on appeal the order of the Rent Controller. Chandigarh ordering the ejectment of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) from the demised premises.
(2.) THE facts :-The landlady lessed out the demised premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,100/- through rent cote dated May 19, 1978. The demised premises were to be used for residential purpose only. The tenant was not to sublet the premises or any part thereof. Eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground that the tenant had not paid or tendered rent with effect from December 1, 1984 onwards; that the tenant had changed the user of the demised premises and set up a printing press under the name and style of "m/s Navneet Parkashan" in the garage and two rooms of the demised premises The tenant used the demised premises for the purpose other than that for which it was let out. The landlady required the demised premises for her own use and occupation.
(3.) THE tenant controverted the allegations made in the eviction petition. It was also pleaded that M/s Navneet Parkashan was a necessary party to the eviction petition. It was, however, emphasized that the disputed premises were rented out to him for running a printing press under the name and style of "m/s Navneet Parkashan of which he was the sole proprietor The execution of the rent note dated May 19, 1978 was admitted, but it was pleaded that it was got signed from him after he had entered on the demissed premises as a tenant. It was further pleaded that the rent note could not create any right is favour of the landlady since it was un-registered. The landlady had been accepting rent on behalf of M/s Navneet Parkashan and she could dispute that the latter was not a tenant on the demised premises from the very beginning. The major portion of the demised premises was being used for office and printing press.