MATHRA DASS Vs. SARUP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord-Mathura Dass in this revision petition under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) assails the orders dated 18.1.1988 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Act and the order dated 21.5.1986 passed by the Rent Controller, Barnala.

(2.) THE petitioner-Mathura Dass filed a petitioner under Section 13 of the Act for the ejectment of Sarup Chand and Ishar Singh respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the one room shop situated within the municipal limits of Barnala, as detailed in the head note of the petition. The case of the petitioner is that the shop in dispute was taken on rent by Sarup Chand (respondent No. 1) at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month from 1.8.1976 to 30.7.1977. A rent note dated 21.7.1987 Ex.A1 was executed by Sarup Chand (respondent No. 1). The petitioner sought ejectment of the respondents No. 1 and 2 on the ground of non-payment of rent as respondent No. 1 had not paid rent from 1.7.1976 to 31.5.1984 amounting to Rs. 5040/-. Besides, he had also not paid house tax @ Rs. 45/- p.a. for the period 1978-79 to 1984-85 amounting to Rs. 315/-. The petitioner also prayed that he was entitled to recover electricity expenses amounting to Rs. 386/-. The other ground of ejectment was that respondent No. 1 had sublet the shop to respondent No. 2 on 1.1.1984 and that respondent No. 2 is in possession of the shop and is running his business. In this manner, the petitioner sought ejectment of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground of non-payment of rent and subletting. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, Tarsem Lal filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a respondent to the petition for ejectment. The said application was allowed on 6.12.1984 and he was impleaded as respondent No. 3.

(3.) THE petitioner filed his replication to the respective written statements of the respondents in which the material averments were denied and those of the petitioner were reiterated.