SHRI MAHABIR PARSHAD VERMA Vs. DR. SURINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh Dated 9th August, 1978 confirming the order of the eviction passed by the Rent Controller.

(2.) The respondent filed this petition under Section 13 of the Act to seek ejectment from shop-cum-flat No. 48, Sector 43, Chandigarh of the petitioner on two ground, namely, non-payment of rent and that the tenant had sub-let the first floor and barsati portion of the premises in dispute. It was further pleaded that the premises in dispute were let out for one month with effect from April, 1974 on a monthly rent of Rs. 450/- and the appellant was given the right to sub-let the flat and the barsati portion of the shop but after the expiry of the tenancy, the appellant was to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. As the tenant failed to deliver back the premises inspite of the registered notice dated August 1, 1974, served upon him, this petition for his eviction was filed. Along with this petition, the landlord filed an application for appointment of local commissioner to inspect the premises and to report as to who was the person in possession thereof. The Local Commissioner went to the spot and reported that he found Balbir Singh, Deep Chand and Hazari Lal living in the 1st Floor and Suresh Kumar and Puran Singh in the barsati portion of the shop-cum-flat in dispute.

(3.) The tenant contested the petition and pleaded the intention of the Rent Note was not to create tenancy for a month only and instead was to reduce to writing the terms and the condition of the tenancy so as to settle the outstanding disputes between parties. The pleas of non-payment of rent and sub-letting of the premises to the persons named in the application as well as the termination of the tenancy were also denied. On the pleadings of the parties three issues were framed but the only issue which survives for the purpose of this petition is as to whether the respondent sublet the building in question to the persons mentioned above. The Rent Controller relying on the testimony and the report of the Commissioner ordered the eviction of the tenant and its order was confirmed, on appeal, by the Appellate Authority. Still dissatisfied, the tenant has come up in this revision.