KIRPAL SINGH Vs. KISHAN SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition reveals a pathetic story of a tenant getting stuck up in a web of his own. He has to suffer an order of ejectment pased by the Appellate Authority, Rupnagar, after the ejectment application against him was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. He challenges the former order with a sense of helplessness.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Kishan Singh, landlord, is the owner of a shop in Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. Vide rent note dated 2nd July, 1975, the said shop was rented out to Mohan Singh respondent at the rate of Rs. 70/- per mensem. The landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against Mohan Singh, tenant, and Kirpal Singh, the present petitioner, allegedly and sub-tenant. The basis of the claimed ejectment was non-payment of heavy arrears of rent with effect from 2nd of July, 1975, till date as sub-letting by Mohan Singh to Kirpal Singh petitioner. The landlord pleaded no privity with the alleged sub-tenant petitioner. Both Mohan Singh and petitioner Kirpal Singh put in separate written statements. Mohan Singh claimed that he had taken the shop in dispute at a monthly rent of Rs. 70/-, had occupied it for two months and vacated thereafter. He also claimed that sometimes later the shop in dispute was given on rent by the landlord to Kirpal Singh, petitioner, directly on tenancy. Kirpal Singh petitioner, also pleaded that he was a direct tenant under the landlord that rate of Rs. 100/- per mensem and that for the last 15 months he had been paying rent regularly to the landlord. He admitted that six months' rent for the period from 1.8.1976 to 31.1.1977 was in arrears, which had been offered to the landlord a number of times but he declined to accept it. This written statement was signed on 24th of February, 1977. The landlord respondent by way of replication controverted the plea by asserting that the shop in question was not given by him to Kirpal Singh, petitioner, on rent as a tenant and that no rent was paid to him as Kirpal Singh was not his tenant.

(3.) It deserves mention here, that on the plea of non-payment of rent, Mohan Singh, the alleged tenant, took up the plea that he was not in arrears and he would not pay any rent. On the other hand the alleged sub-tenant Kirpal Singh, as per his written statement, tendered rent of six months at the rate of Rs. 100 P.M. for the period from 1st August, 1976 to 31st January, 1977, together with interest and costs. The landlord refused to accept it as allegedly it was short of the sum demanded. Kirpal Singh, petitioner, made another effort and deposited the rent of 17th months, amounting to Rs. 1190/- at the rate of Rs. 70/- per mensem, as claimed by the landlord, together with interest and costs. This time too, the landlord refused to accept the same, claiming that it was coming from a source which was other than the sub-tenant and thus he refused to accept the tender made. Despite the tug of war, no issue was claimed by either party before the Rent Controller as to whether the tender of the arrears of rent was valid.