MADAN LAL Vs. BHUPINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of CR No. 1933 of 1986 and CR No. 2490 of 1986 as they are directed against the common judgment given by Mr. N.S. Saini, Rent Controller, Ferozepur dated 31.1.1985 dismissing the Eviction Application of the respondent-landlady and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Ferozepur dated 2.6.1986 in Rent Appeal No. 14 of 1985 and Rent Appeal No. 16-R of 1985.

(2.) BHUPINDER Kaur, the respondent landlady filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking eviction of the petitioner in the court of Rent Controller, Ferozepur. Initially, the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the premises by Brij Mohan Lal who was the owner of the demised premises. Bhupinder Kaur, the present landlady purchased the aforesaid premises and hence became the landlady of the petitioners. The eviction was sought on the grounds of non-payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 140/- per month from 1.10.1977 till the filing of the petition on 3.1.1983 and for subletting the back portion of his shop by the tenant-Madan Pal to his son, Mohinder Kumar, petitioner No. 2. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 had sublet the demised premises to petitioner No. 2 for running a separate business in the back portion of the shop without the written consent of the landlady. The separate replies were filed by the petitioners denying the claim of the respondent-landlady. The allegation of subletting was specifically denied. It was stated that petitioner No. 1 was the actual tenant in possession of the shop which had been taken for the business of cloth merchant styled as Madan Di Hatti and M/s Madan Lal Mohinder Kumar. It was stated that petitioner No. 2, Mohinder Kumar as well as his son, Vijay Kumar had only been assisting the tenant in the business. Therefore, the presence of the son in the business premises was merely that of a licensee. He had no independent right either in the business or in the occupation of the demised premises. Following issues were framed by the Rent Controller :-

(3.) THEREAFTER the Appellate Authority in pragraph 8 of the judgment has further observed as follows :-