SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. SAMPURAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Shamsher Singh (hereinafter described as 'the petitioner') assailing the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar dated 21.9.1995. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the petition for eviction.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the petitioner had filed an eviction application asserting that the property in question was let out to respondent No. 1 for running of the business at a monthly rent of Rs. 70/-. In March, 1976 the rent was enhanced to Rs. 80/- P.M. The ejectment of the respondents was claimed on the ground that the arrears of rent had not been paid from 1.2.1981 and that the tenant-respondent No. 1 has ceased to occupy the premises and is not himself running the business for the last about 3 years before filing the petition. Lastly it was asserted that respondent No. 1 has sublet the premises to respondent No. 2 without the consent in writing of the petitioner and has transferred his rights and lease to respondent No. 2 who is in full control and occupation of the premises. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 has started his business under the name and style of M/s Sampuran Timber and Steel Works. He manufactured wooden and steel furniture. The respondent No. 2 has changed the user and is running his business of manufacturing hand tools under the name and style of M/s Sampuran Engineering Works. Then it was contended that respondent No. 2 was using the premises for other than the purpose for which it was let out.

(3.) Both the respondents contested the petition. It was admitted that respondent No. 1 is the tenant in the property and that on the first date of hearing, the entire arrears of rent had been paid (in this regard there was no dispute raised). However, it was denied that respondent No. 1 has ceased to occupy the property. Respondent No. 2, was stated to be the son of respondent No. 1 in helping the tenant in running of the business. It was denied that tenancy rights have been transferred to respondent No. 2. Plea was raised that manufacturing business was running under the name and style of M/s Sampuran Engineering Works and respondent No. 1 is the proprietor of the same. Both the respondents claimed that they were living together and formed an undivided Hindu Family. As per respondents, there was no change of user of the property. The property was being used substantially for the same purpose for which it was let out.