HARJIT SINGH Vs. RAGHBIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.8.1979 of the learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar, under Section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'), whereby an appeal of the tenant petitioner against the judgment of the learned Rent Controller dated 28.9.1977 directing his eviction from the premises in dispute has been dismissed.

(2.) RAGHBIR Chand and Krishan Kumar Chopra, respondent Nos. 1 and 3 respectively, are admittedly the owners and landlords of the premises in dispute which consist of a plot of land with a room constructed thereon. They filed an application for ejectment under Section 13 of the Act alleging that they had let out the said premises to Gian Chand respondent No. 3, who, however, sublet the same to the petitioner and Jagjit Singh respondent No. 4. It was, however, mentioned in the application that their plea of subletting of the premises by Gian Chand to the petitioner and respondent No. 4 had been rejected in an earlier proceeding by the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 30.8.1969. Their appeal and revision against the said order had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority and this Court. In the earlier proceedings, it was held that the petitioner was a direct tenant under them. They, therefore, sought ejectment of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 from the premises in dispute on various grounds and also impleaded Gian Chand respondent No. 4 from the premises in dispute on various grounds and also impleaded Gian Chand respondent No. 3 as a proforma party. It was alleged that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were liable to make payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month with effect from 1.6.1966 which they, however, failed either to pay or to tender ; that the premises in dispute was rented land and the same was required bonafide by Krishan Kumar Chopra respondent No. 2 for starting business of utensils of all kinds including aluminium, copper, steel etc. ; and that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were a nuisance to the neighbours of the adjoining properties. The application was opposed by the petitioner alone who filed his written statement. He denied that the premises in dispute is a rented land. He pointed out that on the plot a room and a verandah are in existence and is, therefore, a non-residential building. As regards rent, it was pleaded by him that he is a tenant under the said landlords at a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- for the premises in dispute and Rs. 20/- per month to be paid towards the electric connection which, however, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had got disconnected from the Municipal Electricity Department on 1.7.1967. Rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month with effect from 1.8.1969 onwards was tendered along with interest and costs on the first date of hearing which was accepted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under protest contending that the tender so made was not valid. As regards the ground of nuisance, the petitioner denied the said allegation. He stated that he was not a nuisance to the neighbourers in any manner. The personal necessity of respondent No. 2 for setting up his business on the premises in dispute was also denied.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings and the evidence brought on the record before the learned Rent Controller. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amount of Rs. 20/- per month in lieu of the electric connection installed in the premises did not form part of rent. Even otherwise, the electric connection had been got disconnected by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the Municipal Electricity Department on 18.7.1987. They were, therefore, not entitled to the payment of Rs. 20/- per month in lieu of the electric connection. He further submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 made a false claim that the petitioner is a sub-tenant under respondent No. 3, which had already been rejected by the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority and this Court in the earlier proceedings. Still, they persisted in that claim. Their plea for eviction of the petitioner should, therefore, have been rejected on this count alone. For this proposition, he placed reliance on Mehar Chand and another v. Tilak Raj Girdhar, 1982 PLR 13. He further submitted that the allegation that the petitioner is a nuisance to the occupiers of the buildings in the neighbourhood is wholly baseless and the evidence produced on the record is manoeuvred by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Even otherwise, originally no issue had been framed by the learned Rent Controller on this ground which shows that the landlords were not serious to press this ground. Later on, however, they moved an application for framing an additional issue and that is how issue No. (3-A) was framed.