PARKASH CHAND Vs. BHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of two cross revision petitions No. 2741 of 1990 (Parkash Chand and another v. Bhan Chand and another) and 161 of 1991 (Bhan Chand v. Parkash Chand and others), arising out of the same ejectment petition C.R. 2741 of 1990 was heard by me in August, 1994. At that time C.R. 161 of 1991 was not added and a request was made later on that these two revision petitions be disposed of together. Keeping in view this fact, I recalled my order of August, 1994, passed in C.R. 2741 of 1990 and ordered that these two revision petitions be listed together; they are being disposed of by this order. These revision petitions arise out of the following facts :-

(2.) BHAN Chand, landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'the Landlord') sought eviction of Parkash Chand, tenant as well as his son Ashok Kumar and brother Nasib Chand from a shop situated in the Municipal area of Mahilpur. The shop was let out to Parkash Chand in his personal capacity on a monthly rent of Rs. 70/-. Eviction was sought on the following four grounds :-

(3.) BEFORE the appellate Authority, finding on issue No. 1 was not challenged. Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on issues No. 2 and 3 under issue No. 2, it was held that Parkash Chand, tenant had not transferred the possession of the shop to respondents No. 2 and 3. Under issue No. 3, it was held that Parkash Chand, tenant had not ceased to occupy the shop for a continuous period of more than four months. Further, the findings recorded under issue No. 4 by the Rent Controller were upheld by the Appellate Authority. It was held that the tender was not made exclusively on behalf of the tenant but on behalf of the others as well; and therefore, the tender made was not a valid tender. In view of the findings recorded under issue No. 4 the appeal was dismissed. Tenant, being aggrieved, filed C.R. 2741 of 1990 and challenged the findings recorded under issue No. 4. Landlord, being aggrieved of the findings recorded under issues No. 2 and 3, filed C.R. 161 of 1991, which was ordered to be admitted and heard along with C.R. 2741 of 1990.