SHAM GOPAL Vs. VED PARKASH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 11.10.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Nawanshahar, whereby the application filed by the respondents for permission to lead secondary evidence has been allowed.

(2.) In brief, facts are that the petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent (Restrictions) Act, 1949 for ejectment of the respondents from the premises in question. It was averred in the petition that earlier Varinder Mohan Khosla was the owner of the premises in dispute and thereafter the petitioner by way of registered sale deed dated 27.9.1998 became the owner of the premises in question. It was further averred that on 1.6.1981, Sham Dass had taken the premises on rent at the rate of '1500/- per month from earlier owner namely Varinder Mohan Khosla. It was further stated that the said Sham Dass had sublet the premises to one Lekh Raj on 1.4.1982 and thus neither Sham Dass nor his legal representatives i.e. Ved Ram and Madan Lal were in possession of the premises in question. The sublettee constituted a firm under the name and style as Lekh Raj and Brothers and continued in occupation of the premises in question as sub-tenants without consent of the previous as well as present landlord, the petitioner herein.

(3.) The petition was contested by respondents No. 3, 4 and 6 by filing written reply, inter-alia, contending that the petition is not maintainable for want of mis-joinder of necessary parties. It was stated that the property was in the ownership of Amar Nath and Kedar Nath from whom M/s Sham Dass Lekh Raj took on rent about 35 years ago through Kedar Nath Khosla and since then M/s Sham Dass Lekh Raj is in possession as tenant and they are using the tenanted premises as godown from the inception of tenancy.