(1.) THIS petition filed by the tenant-petitioner, namely, M/s Victor Industries and others, under Section 15(v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act'), challenges the view taken by both the Courts below directing its ejectment broadly on two grounds. Firstly, it has been held that the tenant-petitioner has violated the terms of the rent deed, dated 01.05.1978, inasmuch as, Smt. Kailash Wati has been inducted as a tenant by virtue of partnership deed executed on 6.5.1978. It has further been found that there are material alternations effected in the building by the tenant-petitioner without express permission of the landlord- respondent.
(2.) THE learned Appellate Authority firstly, decided the issue of constitution of the tenant-petitioner firm, namely, M/s Victor Industries as on 1.5.1978. The aforementioned controversy was to be decided in view of the conflicting claim of both the parties. According to the landlord-respondent, the demised premises was taken on rent on 1.5.1978 and the rent deed was executed on 6.5.1978, whereas the stand of the tenant-petitioner is that the demised premises was taken on 6.5.1978 and on that day M/s Victor Industries was a partnership firm comprising of Hari Chand, Kailash Wati and her son Rakesh Kumar. The Appellate Authority concluded that the constituents of M/s Victor Industries was Hari Chand and Rakesh Kumar son of Krishan Kumar as on 1.5.1978 and they had inducted Smt. Kailash Wati as partner, which was unequivocally in violation of the terms and conditions of the tenancy. It would be necessary to refer to long para 7 of the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which closely scrutinises evidence and findings and the same reads as under :-
(3.) THERE was some controversy before the Courts below regarding nature of document dated 6.5.1978 (Exhibit A-1). In para 10 of the judgment, the Appellate Authority held that the tenancy had started from 1.5.1978 and after that it has to be concluded that Hari Chand has to be regarded as sole proprietor of the firm. It is on that premise that the Appellate Authority concluded that Hari Chand parted with the possession in favour of Rakesh Kumar son of Kewal Krishan and his mother.