KAMLESH KUMAR Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Kamlesh Kumar and others (hereinafter described as 'the petitioners') directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Faridkot dated 1.3.1979 and of the Appellate Authority, Faridkot dated 19.3.1981. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners and the appeal filed by the petitioner failed before the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that petitioners filed the petition for eviction against Prem Chand (respondent No. 1) and M/s Banarsi Dass Gian Chand (respondent No. 2). It was asserted that respondent No. 1 Prem Chand is the tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. He has not paid the arrears of rent from 1.3.1977. it was further asserted that the tenant-respondent No. 1 had made material alterations in the suit premises and has removed the wooden planks partitioning the shop and fixed almirahs after removing the planks in collusion with Chanan Mal Jagan Nath. This has materially impaired the value and utility of the shop. The suit premises were stated to be unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Lastly it was the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 1 has sublet the last bay of the shop to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is in exclusive possession of the same and has stocked his gur (jaggery) in that place.

(3.) The petition for eviction was contested by respondent No. 1. It was asserted that on the first date of hearing the arrears of rent had been tendered. Accordingly, the said ground of eviction was given up by the petitioners. It was denied that there was any impairment in the value and utility or that the property had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was contended that the property had not been sublet to respondent No. 2. The defence offered by respondent No. 1 was that possession of the suit property remains with him. He has the key of the shop. Respondent No. 2 had placed some bags of gur in a portion of the shop with the permission of respondent No. 1.