DALIP CHAND Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the tenant/sub-tenants against the order of the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, dated 26th July, 1983, affirming the order of the learned Rent Controller by which they were ordered to be ejected.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the land in dispute was a vacant site. Shivdev Singh, one of the owners, gave it on lease to Dalip Chand (hereinafter referred to as tenant) vide lease deed dated 7th September, 1949, for a period of 20 years commencing from 10th September, 1949, on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 12.50 per month. In the lease deed, it was provided that the lessee could raise super-structure on the site at his expense and sub lease could raise super-structure provided therein that he could remove the material of hte super-structure after the expiry of the period of lease or could sell the same to owners at a reasonable price. In 1954-55, consolidation proceedings took place in the village and the property in dispute and some other property fell to the share of the applicants and their brother Devinder Singh. They got their shares separated and Devinder Singh, sold his share. It is alleged that Dalip Chand thus became a tenant under the applicants on the property. He after the expiry of the period of lease continued in the premises as a statutory tenant. It is alleged that he sub-let the property to respondents Nos. 2 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as sub-tenants) after the expiry of the lease period. It is further alleged that after the expiry of the lease, the premises could not be sub-let by the tenant without the written permission of the applicants and consequently they are liable to ejectment. Some other pleas were also taken by the applicants but they do not survive in the revision petition.

(3.) THE Rent Controller held that Darshan Lal and Tarsem Lal were inducted as sub-tenants by the tenant after the expiry of the period of lease which could not be done by him without the written consent of the applicants. Consequently, he ordered ejectment of the tenant and sub-tenants. In appeal, the appellate authority affirmed the said order. They have come up in revision to this Court.