VIR CHAND Vs. HAKAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court affirming on appeal those of the trial Judge, whereby his suit for declaration that the orders dated April 4, 1973, February 26, 1975 and April 7, 1978 passed by the Rent Controller, Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge of this Court in Rent Case No. 2-2 of 1971, Appeal No. 82 of 1973 and Civil Revision No. 372 of 1975, respectively, were null and void and for possession of the shop in dispute from defendants No. 6 and 7 (respondents No. 1 and 2 in this appeal), was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts: The plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter the plaintiff) filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (the Act, for brevity) against Kundan Lal, Babu Ram and Ram Gopal for their ejectment from the shop situated in Ward No. 4, Mandi Area of Municipal Committee, Gidderbaha, on the ground that the shop in dispute was leased out to Kundan Lal at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- per mensem ; that the tenant paid rent upto April 1, 1968 and thereafter committed default in payment of rent, that the tenant sub-let the shop to Babu Ram without consent in writing of the landlord ; that Babu Ram had further transferred the shop to Ram Gopal; that Kundan Lal controverted the plea of the plaintiff that he was a tenant on the disputed shop and that the question of sub-letting the shop to Babu Ram did not arise ; that Babu Ram in his written statement pleaded that Madan Lal remained in possession of the shop in question as tenant under the plaintiff from 1962 till September, 1969, and vacated the shop on September 20, 1969 and delivered vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff; that on September 21, 1969, the plaintiff, leased out the shop to Hakam Rai and Mohinder Pal sons of Ram Gopal, defendants No. 6 and 7/respondents No. 1 and 2 in this appeal (hereinafter the contesting defendants) ; that Ram Gopal in his written statement took the stand that Madan Lal remained in possession of the shop from 1962 to September, 1969; that he delivered the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff on September 20, 1969 and that on September 21, 1969, the shop was leased out by the plaintiff to the contesting defendants-Hakam Rai and Mohinder Pal.

(3.) THE Rent Controller found that the shop in dispute was never let out to Kundan Lal, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the plaintiff and Kundan Lal and that the contesting defendants were direct tenants under the plaintiff. The Rent Controller vide his order dated April 4, 1973, dismissed the eviction application.