VIR CHAND Vs. KUNDAN LAL ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, whereby the appeal of the landlord against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the eviction application was dismissed.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as averred in his eviction petition, the landlord had given on lease the shop situated in the Mandi area of Municipal Committee, Giddarbaha, (hereinafter called the premises in dispute) to Kundan Lal, on an annual rent of Rs. 500/- who continued to pay the rent up to April 1, 1968 and thereafter discontinued to pay the same. It was further averred that the lessee had sublet the premises to Babu Ram, respondent No. 2, without the written consent of the landlord and the sub-lessee had further sublet the same to Ram Gopal. Eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and subletting without consent. Kundan Lal, respondent No. 1, in his reply, denied all the allegations. According to him, he had never taken the premises on lease from the landlord. According to Babu Ram, respondent No. 2, Madan Lal remained on the shop as a tenant upto September, 1969. Thereafter, the premises were leased out to Hakam Rai and Mohinder Pal, sons of Ram Gopal, on September 21, 1969 Ram Gopal, in his statement also filed a reply in similar terms. It was also contended by all the respondents that notice udder Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, had also not been given.

(3.) On May 5, 1971, Ram Gopal, tendered the arrears of rent along with interest and costs which were not accepted by the landlord on the plea that Ram Gopal was not the tenant On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-