SMT. SURJIT KAUR Vs. SHRI PARAM JIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlady's petition, whose ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller and was dismissed in appeal. The landlady sought ejectment of her tenant from the shop-cum-Office No. 11, in Sector 11, Chandigarh, primarily on the ground of sub-letting by the tenant without any written consent of the landlady. In the ejectment application, it was not specifically pleaded as to when the sub-letting took place. The learned Rent Controller, without going into the question as to when the premises was sub-let, came to the conclusion that there being an admission of sub-letting by the tenant, he was liable to ejectment. Consequently, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that since the premises were sub-let prior to the coming into force of the Urban Rent Restriction Act in Chandigarh, the eviction order could not be passed on the ground of sub-letting against the tenant. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed the revision petition in this Court.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. Admittedly, the Urban Rent Restriction Act came into force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh on 14th of November, 1972. It is in the evidence and is not disputed that sub-letting by the tenant was made at the time when the said Act was not in force. Once it is so held, then the landlord was not entitled to eject the tenant on the ground of sub-letting as held by this Court in Surjit Singh v. Tattan Lal and Ors., 1979 2 RCR(Rent) 513 and later on by the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. V.K. Kaushal, 1981 1 RCR(Rent) 59 and the latest judgment of this Court in Gurbachan Singh v. Shri Tirath Ram Gupta and others, 1984 1 RCR(Rent) 299. It has been held that the landlord cannot eject the tenant on the ground of sub-letting which took place before coming into force of the Urban Rent Restriction Act, if the said Act was valid at that time. In view of the judicial pronouncements, there is no merit in this petition.

(3.) Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.