KULDEEP RAJ GUPTA Vs. AVTAR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred at the instance of Kuldeep Raj Gupta petitioner herein who was tenant before the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar against the impugned judgment dated 5.12.2011 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar vide which the appeal was accepted and the order dated 1.9.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller was set aside and the petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short -the Act) for the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises was accepted.

(2.) The case of the respondents herein (petitioners -landlords) before the learned Rent Controller in nutshell was that the petitioners were owners of the demised shop measuring 22 ft. x 11 ft. built in the total area of 26 sq. yards 8 sq. feet as detailed in para No. 1 of the petition. The respondent is the tenant in the demised shop @ Rs. 120/ - per month excluding the roof. The petitioners served a registered AD letter dated 6.5.1998 along with a copy of sale deed upon the respondent for his intimation that they had purchased the demised shop from its previous owner/landlord vide sale deed dated 18.4.1998 registered in the office of Sub -Registrar, Amritsar on 20.4.1998. There exists as such relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties qua the demised shop. A suit for injunction with counter -claim is stated to be pending in the Court learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar between the parties. The petitioners sought the ejectment of the respondent -tenant from the demised shop on the ground of non -payment of rent w.e.f. 18.4.1998 at the above -said rate of Rs. 120/ - per month; that the demised shop has become unsafe for human habitation; that respondent is a source of nuisance since he is using welding set from morning to evening and used to cause vibration and also dangerous gases from the same and also that the demised shop is required by the petitioners for their personal use and occupation. In this connection, it was their plea that at present they are running a business of goldsmith in a shop which is very small one and the same is adjacent to the demised shop. Then it was also their case that the respondent has four shops in the same locality which are rented out to different tenants and hence the present petition.

(3.) On notice, respondent appeared and filed written statement wherein taking the plea that he is the tenant in the demised shop under Smt. Verra Wali widow of Jiwan Singh w.e.f. June, 1964 @ Rs. 22/ - per month and the present rate of rent was Rs. 120/ - per month. After the death of said Verra Wali, he used to pay rent to her legal heirs who was landlord of the demised shop. Then he admitted that registered notice dated 26.5.1998 was sent to him, but it did not contain any document. Then it was his plea that it is for the petitioners to prove that they had purchased demised shop from the previous owner Verra Wali vide registered sale deed. In the absence of this proof, there cannot be any relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties. The alleged civil suit and counter claim was stated to be pending before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Amritsar. He paid the arrears of rent for the period w.e.f. 18.4.1998 to 17.8.1998 @ 120/ - per month along with interest on the first date of hearing to avoid any complication at later stage. Then it was specifically denied that demised shop was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Then it was also denied that the answering respondent had been causing any nuisance by using welding set.