LEKH RAM Vs. FIRM CHANDER BHAN-RAJINDER PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two revision petitions, one by a tenant Chander Bhan, and the other by a landlord Lekh Ram, which have been put up together for hearing simply because the parties are the same, though the matters concerned are separate, since the tenant's petition refers to the question of fair rent and the landlord's petition challenges the dismissal of his petition for ejectment upheld by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) ALTHOUGH other matters were in dispute before the authorities below, the only question in the landlord's petition against the dismissal of his claim for ejectment is the interpretation of the words in Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act which reads -

(3.) THERE do not appear to be any reported decisions of any High Court on the point, but on the whole I am inclined to take the view that this interpretation is correct. If it were not, it might lead to absurd results since the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act came into force in 1949, and it would obviously be quite contrary to the spirit of the Act, which is mainly intended for the protection of tenants, if any period of subletting, however short, which had taken place after the Act came into force, could be made a ground for the ejectment of the tenant 10 or 12 years later. In the case of urban property where landlord lives in the same town it seems to me that it is difficult for a subletting of the whole or any part of the leased property to escape the notice of the landlord for very long, and if he allows this state of affairs to continue without taking any action until some months after the sub -tenancy had ceased he must be regarded as having waived his right to ejectment on the ground of that particular subletting. I, thus, see no reason to interfere in this case and dismiss the landlord's revision petition with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 50.