GIAN CHAND Vs. SHAKTI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of C.R. No 2263 of 1978 and C.R. No 2579 of 1979 as a similar question of law is involved in both the petitions.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to C.R. No. 2263 of 1978 are that the site on which the shop in question was constructed by the landlord-respondent belongs to Municipal Committee, Kapurthala which leased it out to the respondent. The latter constructed the shop and let it out to Gian Chand tenant petitioner No. 1 at a monthly rent of Rs. 58/- with effect from 7.6.1975. A petition for ejectment of petitioner No. 1 was filed by the respondent on 5.11.1975 on the ground of non-payment of rent and subletting of the shop by petitioner No. 1 to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 who are his sons without the written consent of the respondent. Petitioner No. 1 denied the ownership of the respondent as also the relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the respondent. He also denied the allegation of subletting of the premises to petitioners. Nos. 2 and 3. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 claimed that the site, in dispute had been taken on rent by them from the Municipal Committee. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 18.4.1977 directed the ejectment of the petitioners. He held that the relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner No. 1 and the respondent was established and that the shop had been sublet by petitioner No. 1 to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 without the written consent of the respondent. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the Appellate Authority failed and the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller was affirmed by it vide judgment dated 9.10.1978. It has been proved on the record that the lease of the site over which the shop is constructed, made by the Municipal Committee, Kapurthala in favour of the respondent, expired in March, 1974. The terms of the said lease have, however, not been brought on the record. But it now stands undisputed that the respondent after constructing the shop let out the same to petitioner No. 1. The case of the petitioners however, is that after expiry of the said lease the Municipal Committee has now let out the said site to Sudarshan Lal petitioner No. 2 vide rent note dated 30.7.1975, Exhibit R-5. The petitioners, therefore, contended before the learned Appellate Authority that petitioner No. 2 having attorned in favour of Municipal Committee which had the title paramount is now the lessee under the Municipal Committee and the respondent could not bring the application for ejectment as he had ceased to be either lessee of the Municipal Committee or the landlord qua the petitioners This contention was, however, repelled by the learned Appellate Authority firstly on the ground that vide rent note Exhibit R-5, it is only the site which is alleged to have been leased out by the Municipal Committee to petitioner No. 2. It was further held that the Municipal Committee in fact could not lease out the site to petitioner No. 2 until and unless the respondent surrendered its possession to the Municipal Committee or he was evicted therefrom in accordance with law. It was further held that petitioner No. 1 is a tenant under the respondent and since the shop does not belong to the Municipal Committee, it could not be said that with the leasing out of the site the Municipal Committee also let out the shop to petitioner No. 2.

(3.) IN the present revision petitions which arise out of the judgments of the Appellate Authority, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold contentions. His first submission is that since the land underneath the shop in dispute admittedly belongs to the Municipal Committee, the Act had no application to the premises in dispute. He placed reliance on a notification No. 4696(II CI) 59/17859 dated 3 6 1959 of the Punjab Government which lays down that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to buildings and related land belonging to Municipal Committee. It is not necessary for me to deal with this contention in detail as this question is concluded by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Hari Parshad Gupta v. Jitender Kumar Kaushik, 1982 RCR 138 : 1982 P.L.J. 150, wherein it was held that when the land belongs to the Municipal Committee and the building thereon is constructed by the lessee who lets out the same to a tenant, there are distinct ownerships i. e. the Municipal Committee is owner of the land while the lessee from it is the owner of the building. When an application for ejectment of the tenant from such a building is filed by its owner, the same would be maintainable irrespective of the fact that the land underneath the building belongs to the Municipal Committee and is exempt from the provisions of the Act.