HARBANS LAL Vs. KALU RAM AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition against the decision of the Appellate Authority confirming on appeal the order of the Rent Controller granting the application for eviction filed by the landlord.

(2.) Kalu Ram was the owner of a shop, consisting of 12 rooms, situate in Sirhind Mandi, District Patiala. He gave the same on rent to Harbans Lal son of Ralla Ram, proprietor of Messrs Ralla Ram Harbans Lal of Sirhind Mandi by a deed in May, 1954 on a yearly rent of Rs. 665/-. In November, 1966, he filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, hereinafter called the Act, for the eviction of his tenant and one Harbans Lal son of Durga Mal alleging the latter to be the sub-tenant of Harbans Lal son of Ralla Ram. Three grounds for eviction had been taken-(i) that the tenant had not paid the rent since Ist April, 1965; (ii) that the tenant had, without the written or oral consent of the landlord, sublet the last four rooms of the shop in question to Harbans Lal son of Durga Mal and had transferred their possession to him. In the alternative, the tenant had transferred his rights under the lease regarding the said portion of the shop to Harbans Lal son of Durga Mal, who along with the members of his family was keeping the same for residential purposes; and (iii) that the shop in dispute was meant for trade purposes and not for residence, but the tenant had, by subletting the same or in the alternative by assigning his rights under the lease in favour of Harbans Lal son of Durga Mal, allowed the latter to change the user of the premises from non-residential to a residential one.

(3.) This application was resisted both by the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant. They pleaded that the arrears of rent had since been paid and this ground of eviction was, therefore, no longer available to the landlord. As regards the remaining two, the same were denied by both of them. Their case was that the sub-tenant was a close relation, i. e. maternal uncle's son of the tenant, and had been employed by him as Muneem for over 17 years at a monthly salary of Rs. 325/-. The tenant was carrying on the business of commission Agents, both Pucca and Kutcha Arhtia, and most of the goods were stocked in the rooms of the shop in question. Two rooms, however, one for kitchen and the other for residence, had been occupied by the sub-tenant, as a licensee of the tenant. The tenant also took his mid-day meals with the sub-tenant, who prepared it in the kitchen, where the meals for customers, who came from outside, were also cooked. The legal possession and the right to exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said portion of the shop was, however, not transferred in favour of the sub-tenant. By the residence of the sub-tenant in a room close to the kitchen, the stock of goods, belonging to the tenant, in the other rooms was also well guarded. The plea of subletting or the assignment of the lease-hold rights was entirely without any foundation. As regards the third ground, it was said that the tenant was carrying on the business of Commission Agents in the shop in question. Excepting the two rooms mentioned above, all other rooms were used purely for business purposes. Even the user of the two rooms by the alleged sub-tenant was mainly related to the business of the tenant. The dominant purpose for which the shop was leased, thus, remained the same.