JAI CHAND Vs. SOHAN LAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application of the landlord -petitioner, dated March 4, 1970, for the eviction of respondent No. 1 from the residential premises in dispute on the ground of alleged subletting of the premises to the other respondent and the alleged transferring of his tenancy rights therein to that respondent, and on the additional ground of having ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause, was allowed by the order of the Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt., dated May 1, 1971. In the tenant's appeal against the order of the Rent Controller' Shri Jagmohan Lal Tandon, the Appellate Authority (District Judge)', Ambala, held on July 2, 1971, that it had not been proved that Sohan Lal tenant -respondent had sublet or transferred his tenancy rights in favour of his brother Sham Lal, and that even if subletting had taken place, it would date back to sometime prior to November 21, 1969, and would not, therefore, entitle the landlord to evict his tenant, as the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949) (hereinafter called the Act) had been made applicable to Ambala Cantt. only with effect from that date (that is November 21, 1969). On the second issue it was held that the finding of the Rent Controller about Sohan Lal tenant having ceased to occupy the premises in dispute for a continuous period of more than four months had not been challenged before him, but the same did not entitle the petitioner to evict his tenant as that ground had also come into existence period to November 21, 1969.

(2.) In this petition for revision of the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority referred to above, Mr. Manmohan Singh Liberhan, the learned counsel for the landlord -petitioner, has submitted that by the Central Government's notification No. SRO -55, dated January 24, 1974, issued under Sec. 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act (46 of 1957), the Central Government has extended to all the Cantonments in the States of Haryana and Punjab the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949) with retrospective effect from January 26, 1950, with certain modifications and subject to certain exceptions with none of which we are concerned in the present case. It is urged by the learned counsel that since the tenant ceased to occupy the premises for more than four months after January 26, 1950 (date of the coming into force of the Act), and before March 4, 1970 (the date of presenting the application for ejectment), his client is entitled to claim a direction for the eviction of the tenant -respondent from the premises in dispute on the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority which was not even questioned before the Appellate Authority.

(3.) Mr. Kesho Ram Mahajan, the learned counsel for Sohan Lal respondent, does not dispute that Sohan Lal himself had ceased to occupy the premises sometime after January 26, 1950, and before March 4, 1970 and that the said period of non -occupation of the house was for more than four months, but submits that this does not furnish a ground for the eviction of the petition for the simple reason that it has been found as a fact by the Rent Controller, as well as by the Appellate Authority that Sohan Lal's brother Sham Lal respondent No. 2 has admittedly been living in the premises throughout the period of non -occupation of the same by the tenant. The submission of the counsel is that Sham Lal being the younger brother of Sohan Lal is a member of Sohan Lal's family, and since the premises have never been left unoccupied by the tenant in the sense that his family members have been occupying the same, he is not liable to eviction under Sec. 13(2)(v) of the Act. The relevant part of that provision reads as below: - -