CHARAN HOSIERY MILLS (REGD ) Vs. BALDEV SINGH THAPAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the tenant Messrs Charan Hosiery Mills and others against the order dated March 25, 1974 of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal filed by them against the order of eviction passed against them by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, dated December 23, 1972, was dismissed with costs.

(2.) The facts of this case are that Baldev Singh Thapar and others, Respondents Nos. 1 to 4, are owners of the house in dispute, situated in Ludhiana Town and they let out the same to Messrs Charan Hosiery Mills (Registered), appellant No. 1, on a monthly lease of Rs. 175/- on the basis of a rent note dated 8-2-1955. The other petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 Pyare Lal son of Ram Chand are partners of this firm. The house was let out for a period of five years. According to the terms of the tenancy the firm was permitted to sub-let the premises in dispute during the said period. The landlords made an application for ejectment of the tenants from these premises on the allegation that they sub-let different portions of this house to other Respondents Nos. 5 and 7 to 15, after the expiry of the above said period of five years of the tenancy and, therefore, they were liable to ejectment. Ejectment was also claimed on the ground that the tenants committed such acts as were likely to impair materially the value and utility of the rented premises. The tenants contested this application. They admitted the tenancy, but controverted the eviction grounds. It was pleaded that it was a contractual tenancy from year to year paying rent every month. The sub-tenants Respondents Nos. 5, 6, 8 to 12 admitted that they were sub-tenants under the tenants and that respondents 5 to 8 and 10 had already executed rent notes in favour of the landlords and they were not liable to ejectment. On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller :

(3.) The Rent Controller held that the eviction ground of impairing materially the value and utility of the premises in dispute was not proved. However, he held that it was proved that the tenants sub-let these premises to the other respondents and they were liable to be evicted and decided issue No. 1 accordingly. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the landlords. As a result, an order for eviction from the premises in dispute was passed in favour of the landlords against the tenants arid sub-tenants on 23-12-1972. Feeling aggrieved, the tenants filed an appeal against this order in the Court of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, which was dismissed with costs on 25-3-1974. Thereafter they filed this revision petition.