LAWS(P&H)-2012-1-142

JUGAL KISHORE ARORA Vs. RAVI GEONKA

Decided On January 23, 2012
Jugal Kishore Arora and Ors. Appellant
V/S
Ravi Geonka and Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants are in revision against orders of the Courts below by which the eviction petition filed by the landlords under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, impairment of value and utility of the demised premises and subletting has succeeded only on the ground of subletting the demised premises (shop) by petitioner Nos.1 to 3 to petitioner No.4 without the written consent of the landlords.

(2.) In brief, Parshotam Dass Goenka (respondent No.2) had let out the demised premises to Tirath Ram, father/predecessor-in-interest of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. After the death of Tirath Ram, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 stepped into his shoes. The eviction petition is filed, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 did not pay the arrears of rent @ Rs. 500/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.1995; they have, by their act and conduct, impaired the value and utility of the demised premises and have sublet the demised premises to petitioner No.4, a public limited company, without the consent of the landlords. It was averred that the demised premises was on rent with Tirath Ram for his business from 01.05.1976 apropos a rent note dated 07.05.1976. After the death of Tirath Ram, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 have sublet the demised premises to petitioner No.4.

(3.) In reply, it was admitted by petitioner Nos.1 to 3 that the demised premises was let out by respondent No.2 to Tirath Ram @ Rs. 500/- per month and petitioner Nos.1 to 3 had inherited his tenancy rights after the death of Tirath Ram but they have denied the execution of rent note dated 07.05.1976. It was alleged that petitioner No.4 is a public limited company having its registered office at New Delhi and has no office/branch in the demised premises in question. It was denied that petitioner No.4 is in exclusive possession, use, occupation and control of the demised premises. It was also alleged that petitioner No.1 Jugal Kishore Arora is the sole selling agent of petitioner No.4 for Amritsar since 13.05.1994 as per the agreement of the same day which was arrived at with petitioner No.4 and is carrying on his business as such in the demised premises.