HARBANS LAL Vs. SUSHMA KAPIL ALIAS NIKKY KAPIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants that face an order of ejectment by the order of the Appellate Authority are the revision-petitioner. The Civil Revisions are filed at the instance of second respondent-Harbans Lal in Civil Revision No. 6667 of 2001 and by the 3rd respondent-Nanak Chand in Civil Revision No. 6608 of 2001.

(2.) . The landlord's application for ejectment was founded on alleged sub- letting of the tenant-Parshotam Dass, who was the first respondent. The building granted to landlord consisted of two portions and the portion depicted in blue colour was alleged to have been sublet by the first respondent to the second respondent and the portion of the property shown in green colour was alleged to have been sublet to the third respondent. It was also contended by him that the first respondent himself had committed default in the payment of rents. The landlord had also contended that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the value and utility of the building had been impaired. The last two grounds were rejected by the Rent Controller but found that the landlord had established the case of sub-tenancy and as a sequel to his findings, the petitioner ordered ejectment within two months.

(3.) FOR a mere comprehensive understanding of the whole case, a little more dilation of facts is necessary. Ganga Parshad was the original landlord. He had rented out the property to his brother-in-law Parshotam Dass. The premises contained two portions which were used as shops. Parshotam Dass has sub-let one shop namely one portion of the building to a person by a name Gaindi. Ganga Parshad had filed an eviction petition on the ground of sub-letting in favour of Gaindi. The case culminated in proceedings before this Court and disposed of in Civil Revision No. 319 of 2004. In that case, the contention by the sub-tenant was that the sub-tenancy had been granted even on 16.10.1947 and the sub-tenancy having commenced prior to the coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, the prohibitions of the said Act itself were not applicable and hence the ground of ejectment was not available for the landlord. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to accept the contentions of the sub-tenant and found that the sub-tenancy was protected by the inapplicability of the Act and dismissed the landlord's application for ejectment. This order had become final in respect of one portion of the premises.