KISHAN CHAND Vs. BANARSI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kishan Chand, landlord-petitioner, letted out the shop in dispute, situated in the urban area of Gurdaspur town to Banarasi Dass and Chaman Lal, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, at a monthly rental of Rs. 40/- with effect from 1st of September, 1962, vide rent note Exhibit A-1 dated 8th of September, 1962. The landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant from the shop in dispute on the basis of non-payment of rent with effect from 1st of August, 1976, till the filing of this application i.e. 31-1-1977. He also sought the ejectment of the tenants on the ground of having parted with the possession of the shop in dispute since the year 1966 to Kasturi Lal and Roop Lal, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, without the written consent of the landlord. It is further averred that the business in the shop in dispute was carried on in the name and style of M/s. Roop Lal Kasturi Lal from 1966 to 1971 while Chaman Lal, respondent No. 1, is earning his livelihood from transporting goods on a cart and Banarsi Dass, respondent No. 2, is selling fruits and vegetables. Thus it was maintained that the original tenants have absolutely no interest in the business of kiryana being carried out in the shop in dispute by respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The dilapidated condition of the shop in dispute was also stressed.

(2.) The respondents tendered the rent on the first date of hearing. The remaining averments of the landlord were controverted. It was alleged that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 never transferred their right of tenancy in the shop in dispute to respondents Nos. 3 and 4. On the other hand, it was averred that all the respondents are real brothers and members of the joint Hindu family. The actual control of premises is with respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and they are running business in the shop. Subsequently, the tenants were allowed to file the amended written-statement in order to plead that Roop Lal, respondent No. 4, is the karta of the joint Hindu family formed by all the respondents and thus there cannot be any sub-letting. It was, however, asserted that the actual control of the premises was with respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Another amended ground was that the present application has been filed when the tenants failed to oblige the landlord to enhance the rent of, the shop to Rs. 250/- per month.

(3.) In replication, the landlord controverted the allegations in both the written-statements besides reaffirming his original averments in the application.