BALDEV KRISHAN Vs. RAJA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALDEV Krishan filed an application for ejectment under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against Raja Ram tenant on two grounds, one that he was in arrears of rent with effect from 1st Baisakh 2019 BK at the rate of Rs. 500/- per annum and the second that he had sub-let the premises to Kasturi Lal without his written consent. Since Kasturi Lal was alleged to be sub-tenant, he was also impleaded. After notice was issued by the Rent Controller, Raja Ram tenant did not put in appearance and was proceeded ex-parte.

(2.) THE petition was contested by Kasturi Lal. He pleaded that Raja Ram was not the tenant, that he was in possession as a tenant for the last 15 years and earlier thereto his father was tenant. The father had died in 1958 and since then he is in possession of the shop as a tenant. His case was that he and his father had been paying rent to Baldev Krishan and rent had been paid by the end of Chaitra 2029 BK. The points in controversy were put in issues. The Rent Controller held that Raja Ram was the tenant and Kasturi Lal was the sub-tenant. Since Raja Ram had not tendered arrears of rent on the first date of hearing the order of ejectment was passed on the both the grounds. Issue No. 2-A was as follows :-

(3.) AS regards issue No. 2-A, the Appellate Authority was of the view that the finding of the trial Court on this issue could not be up-held. It was further held that the case of Kasturi Lal tenant was that he has paid rent upto 12.4.1972 and since he was not being admitted as a tenant, the issue was unnecessary because the ground of non-payment of rent related to Raja Ram alone, who was considered by the landlord to be tenant and since Raja Ram not proved to be the tenant both the grounds against him ceased to exist. Consequently, by order dated 3rd January, 1978, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of ejectment. This is landlord's revision.