MANGAL SINGH Vs. VARINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenges the judgment dated 3.1.1985 passed by the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar upholding the order of ejectment of the tenant-petitioners dated 30.11.1982. The Rent Controller, Jalandhar in his order dated 30.11.1982 had ordered ejectment of the tenant-petitioners sustaining the ground of material alterations and impairment of value and liability of the demised premises. The findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority.

(2.) LANDLORD -respondent Varinder Kumar filed an application on 20.2.1980 under Section 13 of the Act seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioners from the demised alleging that the aforementioned premises undertaken on rent from Ram Rattan through his son Sham Lal who is the father of landlord-respondents. Ram Rattan died and was survived by his son Sham Lal and (sic) Varinder Kumar and Mohinder Kumar. Thereafter State was partitioned and the premises in dispute fell to the share of landlords-respondents. For that (sic) the defendant-respondents 2 and 3 have been impleaded (sic). However, no relief has been claimed against them. Ejectment was sought principally on the ground of material alterations and the construction raised in the (sic). It was alleged that the tenant-petitioners have started using furnace on the fore- front of the shop (sic) completely violating the terms and conditions of the tenancy. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the landlord-respondents has argued that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below cannot be interfered with as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vaneet Jain v. Jagjit Singh, 2000(1) RCR(Rent) 507 (SC) : 2000(5) SCC 1. He has further submitted that the rent note which is now referred to by the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioners was never produced before the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority. Even before this Court, there is no application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the rent note at such a belated stage.