PISHORI LAL Vs. SH. THAKUR JI, THAKURDWARA SUNAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of the above-noted Civil Revision No. 2789 of 1984 (Pishori Lal v. Sh. Thakur Ji, Thakurdwara Sunami Gate, Patiala and others) and Regular Second Appeal No. 644 of 1993 (Shri Thakur Ji, Thakur Dwara Sunami Gate, Patiala and another v. Municipal Committee, Patiala and another), which was ordered to be heard alongwith this revision petition vide order dated 3.3.2004.

(2.) THE revision is of an old vintage and has now reached its turn for hearing. The order impugned is the one passed by Appellate Authority, Patiala, up- holding the order dated 30.4.1982 passed by Rent Controller, Patiala. Petitioner, Pishori Lal, took on rent the land comprised in Khasra No. 313 min and 314 min situated outside Sunami Gate, Patiala, at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month from a religious Institution, named, Shri Thakur Ji, Thakur Dwara, Sunami Gate, Patiala (respondent No. 1). The property was taken on rent through Mohatmim Jagan Nath. The rent deed was executed and is dated 14.7.1975. Though, the petitioner was only allowed to construct one shed and one Kacha room for his residence and office purposes, but contrary to the terms of the rent note, he had constructed 13 shops on the rented land. It is claimed that the petitioner has, thus, materially impaired its value and utility of the rented premises. Grievance further is that the petitioner has sub-let these shops in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 16. Respondent Nos. 17 to 20 were subsequently inducted as sub-tenants during the pendency of the ejectment application. It is also pleaded that the petitioner is in arrears of rent since August, 1977 and, thus, petition for eviction was filed on the grounds of sub-letting, impairing the value of the property and arrears of rent. Only the petitioner had contested the rent petition. The remaining respondents absented after putting in appearance on some dates and subsequently were proceeded ex parte.

(3.) THE issue of impairing the value and utility of the land was decided against respondent No. 1-landlord by the Rent Controller. However, it was found that the landlord had never given a written permission to the petitioner to construct to sublet the same and, thus, the issue was decided against the petitioner, directing his ejectment. The Appellate Court has up-held the finding of the Rent Controller, thus, leading to filing of the present revision petition.