H.S. SANDHU Vs. SATYA PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for ejectment of the respondents from shop-cum-flat No. 38, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh on various grounds and after trial this petition was dismissed on 24.5.1983 by the Rent Controller. Appeal against it filed by the petitioners was heard by the Appellate Authority. Ultimately this appeal also failed vide order dated 6.11.1984, passed by the Appellate Authority. Both the orders have been challenged in this revision. During pendency of this revision Civil Misc. No. 767-C-II of 1989 was filed under Section 15(5) of the Act read with Order 41 rule 27 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to lead additional evidence by way of (i) order of appellate authority dated 6.2.1986 in appeal by Satya Parkash and Empire Building against Smt. Gomti Devi, S/Shri. Dharam Singh and Karam Singh accepting the appeal of the appellants therein and directing ejectment of the said respondents, and (ii) an order dated 5.8.87 passed by D.V. Sehgal, J. (as he then was) in Civil Revision No. 724 of 1986 Smt. Gomti Devi and Shri Dharam Singh against Satya Parkash and Empire Buildings Store on one side and Shri Karam Singh proforma respondent on the other and the said civil revision was dismissed. This Civil Miscellaneous was opposed and the matter was directed to be heard along with main Civil Revision. Both, the Civil Revision and Civil Miscellaneous are being decided by this order.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present revision are that Master H.S. Sandhu, Miss Gurbrinder Sandhu, minor son and daughter of Shri M.S. Sandhu through their father as their next friend and natural guardian and Mrs. Amarjit Kaur Sadhu claimed to be the owners-landlords of the said premises and had let out the same on monthly rent by way of an oral agreement to respondent No. 1 who was required to use the tenancy premises according to the rules and regulations governing the building. Shop portion thereof was to be used for business purpose whereas the flat portion was to be used for residential purpose. Sub-letting and under-let were prohibited and tenant-respondent No. 1 was not to make any additions or alterations without the written permission of the petitioners. The rent was to be paid monthly in advance on or before 5th day of the month. The ejectment was sought on the grounds (i) respondent No. 1 had sub-let first floor of the demised premises to Smt. Gomti Devi and Dharam Singh at a monthly rent of Rs. 175/- some time in the year 1974 without the consent of the petitioners and this sub-tenancy was still continuing; (ii) shop portion of the demised premises was sub-let by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 4 under whose name and style the business was being carried on. As a matter of fact the shop portion was rented out to respondent No. 1 for carrying on his business there and the flat portion was let out to him for his residence. This sub-letting by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 4 was also without consent of the petitioners; (iii) respondent No. 1 had made additions, alterations i.e. a kitchen, latrine and bath had been constructed on the Barsati portion against the rules and regulations governing the building and against the sanctioned plan thereby materially impairing the value and the utility of the building. The constructions are of permanent nature and had been done without the permission of the petitioners in the year 1979.

(3.) AFTER the said written-statements were filed the petitioners filed replication reiterating their averments in the ejectment petition and denying the pleas raised in the written-statement. Further averment was added to the effect that the respondent No. 1 increased the rent of his own volition to cover his fault of making additions and alterations as also of sub-letting for which the petitioners only came to know in or about the month of March 1981.