AMRIT KAUR Vs. RAGHUNATH LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 876 and 1152 of 1979; and Civil Revision No. 1719 of 1980, as the question involved is common in all these petitions.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the premises in dispute, which is the subject-matter of Civil Revision No. 1719 of 1980, belonged to Dr. Hari Singh Staija, who died on 27th December, 1962, leaving behind his widow Shrimati Amit Kaur (petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1719 of 1980), three sons by the names of Dr. Narinder Singh, Dr. Jagat Singh and Arvinder Singh, and a daughter by the name of the Shrimati Krishna Rani. Shrimati Amrit Kaur, widow of Dr. Hari Singh, filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking the eviction of Rahgunath Lal and four other persons, on the ground of subletting by Raghunath Lal to these persons. This application was filed on 15th June, 1974, out of which Civil Revision No. 1719 of 1980 has arisen. It was alleged in that application that the premises in dispute therein which was unit 'C', comprising of three shops on the ground floor, two rooms on the first floor and one small bath and a barsati on the second floor, were given on rent by her to Raghunath Lal at the rent of Rs. 65/- per mensem vide rent note dated 16th January, 1964 (Exhibit PA/1). This rent note was for a period of 11 months only i.e. from Ist February, 1964 to 31st December, 1964, and the said tenancy expired by efflux of time. She maintained that against the express terms of the rent note, which prohibited Raghunath Lal from creating any subt-tenancy, he let out one shop on the groundfloor to Des Raj, respondent No. 2 and another to Lal Chand, respondent No. 3. A room on the first floor was similarly given on rent to M/s. Bansal and Khurana, Income-tax practitioners (respondent No. 4), and another room of I.S.K. Government Contractors (respodent No. 5). Thus on the ground of sub-letting by Raghunath Lal to other respondents, their ejectment from the premises in dispute was sought.

(3.) DES Raj (respondent No. 2) and Lal Chand (respondent No. 3) filed separate written statements. Their stand in the written statements was that they were tenants on the premises in dispute since 1954 vide rent note Exhibit RW1/1 executed in favour by Raghunath Lal during the lifetime of Dr. Hari Singh Satija, who had authorised him to rent out the premises in dispute. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 never appeared before the Rent Controller and thus proceeded against ex-parte.