LAL SINGH Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment, I will dispose of two Civil Revisions i.e. Civil Revision No. 1282 of 1983 titled Lal Singh v. Ashok Kumar, and Civil Revision No. 1686 of 1983, Civil Revision No. 1282 of 1983 filed by Jagrup Singh who is none else but is the son of Shri Lal Singh aforesaid and both the Civil Revisions have been directed against the judgment dated 12.4.1983, passed by the Appellate Authority, Bhatinda, who allowed the appeal of Shri Ashok Kumar, landlord under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called "the Act") and set aside the order dated 29.4.1982, passed by the Rent Controller, Mansa, who dismissed the application of Shri Ashok Kumar under Section 13 of the said Act. The learned appellate authority gave three months time to the respondents S/Shri Jagrup Singh and Lal Singh to vacate the demised premises.

(2.) The pleadings of the parties can be described in the following manner. Shri Ashok Kumar son of Shri Om Parkash landlord filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act against Shri Jagrup Singh and his father Shri Lal Singh, seeking ejectment from the demised premises which is a shop as described in the heading of the petition situated at Mansa on the allegations that respondent No. 1 Shri Jagrup Singh took the demised premises on rent at the rate of Rs. 4,200/- per year and a rent note was also executed in this regard. This tenancy came to an end on 30.6.1975. No payment of rent was made by respondent No. 1, nor he handed over the possession of the demised premises to the petitioner after the expiry of the lease term. In this manner, respondent No. 1 became the statutory tenant on the expiry of the contractual tenancy but he has not paid the rent to the landlord starting from 30.6.1981. It is further alleged by the landlord that respondent No. 1, Shri Jagrup Singh had sublet the shop in question to respondent No. 2 Shri Lal Singh, his father. Earlier, an application for ejectment was filed by the applicant against respondent No. 1 Shri Jagrup Singh but respondent No. 2 was not impleaded as a party. The Rent Controller dismissed that application but the appellate authority permitted the petitioner to withdraw his appeal with permission to file a fresh petition. Both the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties agreed for the withdrawal of the appeal. So, the present petition has been filed for ejectment against Shri Jagrup Singh and his father Shri Lal Singh on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of subletting.

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Separate written statements were filed on their behalf. Stand of Shri Jagrup Singh, respondent No. 1, was that he never executed any rent note in favour of the landlord. According to him, he was a tenant of the shop in question at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per year and not at the rate of Rs. 4,200/- per year as alleged by the landlord. It is further stated by respondent No. 1 that on 23.6.1976, he surrendered his tenancy to the landlord itself and also handed over the vacant possession of the shop in question to the landlord and he has further made the payment of the rent to the landlord at the time of the surrender of the tenancy. It is further pleaded by Jagrup Singh that on 1.7.1976, this very premises was let out by the petitioner Shri Ashok Kumar to his father Shri Lal Singh and the rent was enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 2,100/- per year and in this way, respondent No. 1 has denied his relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner after 22.6.1976. His categorical stand is that Shri Lal Singh, respondent No. 2 has become a direct tenant of the petitioner with effect from 1.7.1976. He further submitted that on the same ground earlier an ejectment petition was filed by the petitioner and the same was dismissed by the Rent Controller. An appeal was preferred against that order and the appellate authority allowed to withdraw that appeal. Respondent No. 2 Shri Lal Singh also filed a separate written statement and contested the petition. He took the legal objections that the present petition is barred under the principle of res judicata in view of the earlier order dated 12.3.1979. So, the petitioner is debarred to file the present application by his own act and conduct. According to this respondent, he is a direct tenant under the petitioner starting from 1.7.1976. He has tendered the arrears of rent as claimed by the petitioner along with interest and, therefore, the ground of ejectment of non-payment does not survive.