BRAHAM PARKASH Vs. RATTAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant Rattan Lal from the shop, in dispute, on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.6.1969 to 19.8.1973 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. The premises were rented out on 1.2.1969, vide rent note Exhibit A 1, at the said rate. Secondly, the tenant Rattal Lal has sublet the premises, in dispute, to respondents 2 to 4, i.e., Ram Chand and others, Rattan Lal Ram Chand filed their joint written statement. It was pleaded by them that both of them were the tenants in the shop, in dispute, and that earlier fair rent of the shop, in dispute, was fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs. 400.50 per annum on 17.8.1953 in an application titled Hardeva Ram v. Braham Parkash and, therefore, the landlord was estopped from charging Kore rent than the said fair rent. On the first date of hearing, rent at the said fair rent was deposited by Rattan Lal tenant. Separate written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4. They took up a plea that they were working at the tenancy rights thereof. It was Ratten Lal tenant who was in occupation of the premises, in dispute. The Learned Rent Controller found that the shop, in dispute. The learned Rent Controller found that the shop, in dispute, was rented out to Rattan lal only and not to Rattan Lal and Ram Chand jointly as claimed by them. It was further found that, since fair rent of the shop in dispute, was already fixed though on the application of the tenant who was occupying the premises earlier in the year 1953, but the same was binding on the landlord and thus the tender made on the first date of hearing was valid. On the question of subletting the Rent Controller found that the tenant Rattan Lal and Ram Chand are having joint business of their family and, therefore, it was not a case of subletting, as alleged; with these findings, the application was dismissed. On appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the order rejecting the application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed petition in this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the relevant evidence on the record. According to the finding of the Rent Controller, even if material improvements were made in the shop, in dispute, the rate of rent could not be encharge as the improvements were without the consent of the tenant. To the same effect is the finding of the Appellate Authority when it observed that this type of repairs did not amount to addition, improvement or alteration. What had weighed with the authorities below was that, since this additional improvement was done without the consent of the tenant, no increase could be made in the fair rent in view of section 5 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. This approach in my view, is wholly wrong and misconceived. Section 5 of the said Act reads as under :-