HARI CHAND MOTI RAM Vs. SANTOKH SINGH

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 evicting him from the premises in dispute.

(2.) IN 1942, Santokh Singh and his brother Niranjan Singh had purchased the house, which is situate in Ludhiana. In the same year, a portion of this house, consisting of two rooms, a kitchen, a terrace and a gallery, on the first floor, was given on rent by Niranjan Singh to one Moti Ram at a monthly rent of Rs. 6/ -. It appears that in 1945, an application under the Rent Act for the eviction of Moti ram on the ground of personal necessity was moved by Niranjan Singh. Subsequently, a compromise was effected and this application was withdrawn. In 1960, Moti Ram died and was survived by his three sons Hari Chand, Lal Chand and Dhian Chand. In 1963, another application under Section 13 of the East punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, hereinafter called the Act, was made by niranjan Singh and his brother Santokh Singh against Shri Hari Chand and his brother Lal Chand for their eviction from the premises. This application was also, subsequently, withdrawn in April 1964, because the landlords had not given the required notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It appears that in January 1967, another application of a similar kind was moved by both the brothers against Hari Chand and Lal Chand. It is said that this application was also withdrawn at the appellate stage. In August 1968, an application for ejectment under Section 13 of the Act, out of which the present revision petition has arisen, was filed by Santokh Singh on his own behalf and as attorney of Niranjan Singh, against Hari Chand alone. The grounds of ejectment were: (a) non-payment of rent; (b) that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises; and (c) "that Santokh Singh has returned from east Africa and decided to settle permanently at Ludhiana and the premises in his occupation are insufficient to meet his requirements and, therefore, he needs the premises in the possession of the tenant for his bona fide personal need. "

(3.) THIS application was contested by Hari Chand, who denied the allegations made by the landlords and pleaded that he was the tenant of Santokh Singh alone and not of Niranjan Singh. His case further was that after the death of his father, the latter's sons as his heirs, entered into possession of the property as joint tenants and were still occupying the same in that capacity. The ejectment application was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was further said that no valid notice had been given to him and his brothers, who were occupying the premises in dispute as tenants.