RAJ RANI Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's revision under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) and has been directed against the judgment dated 19.1.1983 passed by the Court of Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur who set aside the order dated 2.8.1990 passed by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur who allowed the application of Smt. Raj Rani landlady under Section 13 of the Act.

(2.) The brief pleadings are that the shop in dispute belonged to one Kharaiti Ram and others who sold it to the present landlord for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- vide sale deed dated 5.6.1979. Mangat Ram (husband of Kaushalaya Devi and father of Kamla Devi and Nirmala Devi) was in occupation of the shop as a statutory tenant under the previous owner under a rent note dated 4.6.1960 on a monthly rent of Rs. 8/- only. Mangat Ram died about four years before the filing of the ejectment petition leaving behind Kaushalaya Devi and her two daughters appellants as the legal heirs who thus became tenants of the premises in dispute under the law. Ejectment petition was filed on the ground that the tenants failed to pay the arrears of rent with effect from 5.6.1979 and that they also sub-let or assigned their tenancy rights in favour of appellant No. 4 Komal Kumar without the consent of the landlord.

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to respondents No. 1 to 4. They have filed joint written statement stating that Mangat Ram was running a business under the name and style of Gift Museum in Dabbi Bazar, Hoshiarpur in a partnership firm under the name and style of Brij Lal Mangat Ram. Relationship of respondents No. 1 to 3 with Managat Ram were admitted. It was maintained that on the first date of hearing, rent alongwith interest and costs were paid The allegations regarding sub-letting has been denied and it was pleaded that respondents No. 1 to 3 were tenants of the shop in dispute which was being used by the firm of which respondents No. 1 to 3 are now partners but, it was added that appellant No. 4 was only acting as a Manager to look after the affairs of the firm of tenants No. 1 to 3.