SHIVALA DAMODAR DASS Vs. RAMJI DASS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) dismissing his petition for ejectment inter alia on the ground that respondent No. 1 has sub -let the premises in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3 and that respondent No. 1 has ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 4 months and that respondents are in arrears of rent.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 admitted the relationship and stated that an agreement was signed to build the shop in place of Khokha with the material supplied by the respondents and then the rent would be chargeable at the rate of Rs. 300/ - per month after 1.7.1986. However, whenever the answering respondent approached the applicant he was informed that the site plan has not been got sanctioned from the Municipal Council and other tenants have not agreed to the terms and conditions so that respondent was told to wait till the site plan is sanctioned and other tenants are persuaded for the total construction of the wing as the applicant was -interested to get total wing being constructed at the same time. However, respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a separate written statement submitting that respondent No. 1 is not the tenant and in fact respondents No. 2 and 3 are the tenants under the petitioner through their father. Respondents worked in partnership with Madan Lal till his death and thereafter in their own right, though the receipts of rent continued to be issued in the name of Madan Lal. It was also submitted that the respondents have been paying rent to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/ -and that Ramji Dass never came in possession of the Shop in dispute as tenant. The agreement dated 17.5.1986 was stated to be illegal, void and not binding on the respondents.

(3.) LEARNED Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal against the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller to the effect that the rate of rent is Rs. 10/ - per month. Since the rent was to be enhanced to Rs. 350/ - only if the shop was to be constructed in terms of Ex.A.2 which was found not admissible into evidence. Since no shop has been constructed, therefore, the rate of rent is Rs. 10/ - per month only. The Rent Controller also held that Sh. S.N. Chopra had been appointed receiver of the petitioner by the High Court, therefore, Dharam Pal Dhiman is not competent to prosecute this application. It was also held by the Rent Controller that respondent No. 1 has nothing to do with the demised premises and respondents No. 2 and 3 are the direct tenants and thus, the ground of sub -letting does not survive.