PARKASH CHAND Vs. SHRI MUNI LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Muni Lal respondent in this Revision Petition filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against and for the ejectment of Parkash Chand petitioner (tenant). Shiv Charan Dass and Ashok Kumar respondents 2 and 3 were also parties with the allegation that the tenant had sublet the premises in dispute (sic). The demised premises is a shop at Amritsar. There is no dispute that the shop in question was leased to the petitioner at Rs. 100 per month. It was alleged that the petitioner had stopped paying rent for the shop with effect from January 1, 1972 i.e. for a period of over two years before the filing of the ejectment application. The second allegation against the tenant was that without the written consent of the landlord he had sublet the premises to the other two respondents and had changed the user of the shop. The ground of non-payment of arrears of rent was set at naught by the tender of the arrears along with interest and costs by the petitioner on the first date of hearing in accordance with the facility granted under the Act. The parties, however, went in contest on the only other ground as to whether the premises had been sublet by the petitioner or not. The ground of the change of user was also made the subject matter of an issue i.e. issue No. 2. However, no evidence was led on this point and the issue was decided against the landlord. The third issue as framed by the Rent Controller pertains to the competence of termination of the tenancy of the tenant without a valid notice but as such a notice is not a pre-requisite to the filing of an eviction application, this issue was also disposed of against the landlord. Under the crucial issue relating to the question of sub-letting the Rent Controller after discussing the evidence produced by both the parties at length including some documentary evidence of photographs etc. came to the conclusion that the petitioner had sublet the demised premises to the other two respondents. The issue was, therefore, held in favour of the landlord and in consequence thereof, the petitioner was directed to deliver possession of the disputed premises to the landlord. For this purpose, three months' time was allowed to the tenant.

(2.) The petitioner-tenant feeling dissatisfied with the verdict of the Rent Controller, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Amritsar, but the said Authority also after giving the matter a close scrutiny, affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. The present is, therefore, the third trial of luck by the petitioner in this litigation.

(3.) At the outset, it may be stated that respondents 2 and 3 namely Shiv Charan Dass and Ashok Kumar who were found by both the Courts below to be the sub-tenants inducted by the petitioner, did not contest the matter before the Rent Controller and were, therefore, proceeded against ex parte. Thereafter, they did not also join the petitioner in the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority where they were once again proceeded against ex parte as they did not choose to appear despite service. In the present Revision Petition also an attempt was made to serve them but the notices came back with the report that their whereabouts were not known. It is contended by Mr. G.C. Mittal, learned counsel for the landlord that these two respondents are rally unnecessary parties as no relief is claimed against them by the petitioner. In fact they have been arrayed as mere proforma respondents. Their service in the present Revision Petition is not going to serve any purpose as the claim of the landlord (in the present proceedings) is only for the ejectment of the tenant. The two contesting parties, i.e. the landlord and tenant have, therefore, been heard at length.