BACHAN SINGH ALIAS GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bachan Singh alias Gurbachan Singh son of Phuman Singh, resident of Sabzi Mandi, Moga, claiming himself to be the landlord of the demised premises has filed the present revision and it has been directed against the judgment dated 7.3.1983 passed by the Court of the appellate authority, Faridkot, who allowed the appeal of Mohan Lal, Mohinder Pal and Balwant Rai, under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and set aside the ejectment order dated 31.1.1981 passed by the Rent Controller, Moga, who allowed the ejectment petition of Bachan Singh.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Bachan Singh filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act, seeking ejectment of the demised premises which is a shop situated at Moga, on the allegations that he has owner of the shop as well as the land whereas respondent No. 1 Mohan Lal is a tenant under him at the monthly rental of Rs. 50/-, excluding house tax and other taxes. The petitioner alleged in para-2 of the petition that he was filing the copy of the rent note allegedly executed by Mohan Lal in his favour. This aspect of the case I will deal in the subsequent portion of this order. The pleadings of the petitioner further proceed in the manner that the respondent No. 1 Mohan Lal is liable to be ejected from the shop in question because he has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent to him at the rate of Rs. 50A per month starting from 1.9.1971 upto the date of the filing of the ejectment petition, i.e. 5/9.2.1997. The petitioner further alleged that respondent No. 1 has sub-let the premises in dispute to respondent No. 2 without his written consent and further that respondent No. 2 had sub-let the premises to respondents No. 3 and 4 i.e. Balwant Rai and Mangat Ram, though none of them had any right to do so. For this reason, respondents 2 to 4; namely Mohinder Pal, Balwant Rai and Mangat Ram, respectively, have been added as party. With the above allegations, the petitioner filed the ejectment application.

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to the respondents and a joint written statement was filed by Mohan Lal, Mohinder Pal and Balwant Rai, who denied the allegations of the petitioner by stating that respondent No. 1 Mohan Lal was a tenant under Ram Kaur, mother of the petitioner upto 1970. Later on, he left the shop and the same was taken over by respondents 2 and 3 as tenants at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. Respondent No. 1 was never a tenant under the petitioner and he had been paying the rent to Ram Kaur. These respondents categorically stated in para-3 of the written statement that respondent No. 1 had left the shop in the year 1970 and since then, respondents 2 and 3 are the tenants of the shop and these respondents 2 and 3 are in possession of the shop in their own right. Respondent No. 4 is only a worker at the shop with respondents 2 and 3.