AMAR NATH Vs. GURU RAMDASS TEXTILE MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's revision and has been directed against the order dated 7.8.1982 passed by the appellate authority, Amritsar, who affirmed the order dated 25.7.1979 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-landlord. The Rent Controller had dismissed the petition under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Act filed by Sh. Amar Nath seeking the eviction of the respondents on various grounds.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the premises fully described in para No. 1 of the ejectment application were taken on rent by respondent No. 1 M/s Guru Ram Dass Textiles Mills through Sh. Pritpal Singh son of Sh. Ganga Singh on 27.12.1968 at a monthly rent of Rs. 180/- for a fixed period of 11 months on the terms and conditions incorporated in the rent note dated 27.12.1968. It was pleaded by the landlord that respondent No. 1 had violated the terms of tenancy by not making regular payments of each month and as such it resulted in the forfeiture of the tenancy and that it also stood terminated by efflux of time. Though the notice for terminating the tenancy was not necessary but with a view to avoid any complication a registered notice dated 16.6.76 was served upon respondent No. 1. The notice was also affixed on the tenancy unit as well as on the residential house of the tenant. The landlord sought the ejectment of the respondents No. 1 and 2 on the ground that respondent No. 1 has not paid the arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.1976 onwards. He had sub-let the premises by parting the possession of a part of the tenancy to respondent No. 2 M/s M.M. Weaving Factory through Smt. Amarjit Kaur wife of Kirpal Singh without his written consent. The sub-tenant is in complete possession of half of the tenancy unit. It has been partitioned into two portions by raising a wall. The third ground for ejectment was that the tenant has changed the user of the property. The tenancy was created for running a cloth business but its half portion is now being used as poultry farm business and for storing the poultry feed and other articles connected with the business.

(3.) NOTICE of the ejectment petition was given to the respondents. Respondent No. 2 did not contest the rent application and was proceeded ex parte. Respondent No. 1 contested the ejectment application and he denied the allegations. According to him, the premises were taken on rent for doing every sort of business and it was not taken for a specific purpose of carrying the cloth business. He is carrying the cloth manufacturing business and has installed huge machinery in the said premises. The machinery could not be dismantled without the prior permission of the State Government. It was also pleaded by respondent No. 1 that present application has been filed in collusion with respondent No. 2. He had never ceased to occupy the premises. He is regularly carrying on his business. During the period of disconnection of electricity, he was running his factory with the aid of diesel engine. Respondent No. 1 also pleaded that he had business dealing with respondent No. 2 through Amarjit Kaur.