CAPT AMARJIT SINGH Vs. PREM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-landlord, against the orders passed by the Courts below whereby the ejectment petition filed by him was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner-landlord filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against Prem Kumar son of Gurpal Dass, seeking his ejectment from the shop in question on the ground of non-payment of rent since June, 1985. During the pendency of the ejectment petition, in the application filed by Gurpal Dass applicant was ordered to be impleaded as a respondent, vide order dated 27.11.1986, passed by the Rent Controller. In pursuance thereof, landlord filed amended petition impleading Gopal Dass (instead of Gurpal Dass) as respondent No. 2, in the ejectment petition. In the ejectment petition, it was alleged that the respondent is a tenant under the landlord on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- vide rent note dated 21.3.1985.

(3.) The ejectment petition was contested by respondent No. 2 Gurpal Dass, alleging therein that he was tenant under the landlord and had got the shop in dispute on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- with effect from 11.1.1979 which was later on enhanced to Rs. 225/- with effect from 1.8.1981 with the mutual consent of the parties. It was alleged that the alleged rent note dated 21.3.1985 is a forged and fabricated document and has been created only to harass the answering respondent. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 is son of respondent Nos.2 and his whereabouts were not known for the last about 2 years. It was further alleged that respondent No. 1 Prem Kumar had no concern with the shop in dispute. It was alleged that the arrears of refit had been tendered on 8.12.1986 along with interest etc. and as such the petition had become infructuous.