MAHANT TEJA SINGH Vs. SAT PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('the Act' for short) has been filed by the landlord/petitioner against the order dated 6.11.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under the Act whereby the appeal of the landlord/petitioner against the order dated 13.3.2002 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar has been dismissed.

(2.) THE predecessor-in-interest of the landlord-petitioner i.e. Mahajant Kartar Singh Chela Mahant Hamir Singh (since deceased) had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking ejectment of the respondents from house No. 941/V-8, Chowk Moni, Chhan Gali, Amritsar alleging that Sat Pal (respondent No. 1) had inducted Smt. Asha Rani (respondent No. 2) as a sub- tenant in the premises in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. Sat Pal (respondent No. 1), it was alleged that also executed a rent note in favour of Mahant Lal Singh, predecessor-in-interest of Mahant Kartar Singh. The other ground for seeking the ejectment of the respondents was that respondent No. 1 has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent with effect from 1.2.1984 @ Rs. 20/- per month along with interest. In this manner it is alleged that Sat Pal (respondent No. 1) has not tendered rent @ Rs. 20/- per month since 1.2.1984; besides he has sublet the property to respondent No. 2 and he himself is residing elsewhere and running his business there. Accordingly eviction of the respondents was sought.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 13.3.2002, dismissed the ejectment petition. In respect of non-payment of rent it was held that on the first date of hearing, respondent No. 1 tendered arrears of rent for the period from 1.3.1984 to 30.4.1992 for 98 months @ Rs. 20/- per month amounting to Rs. 1,960/-, besides Rs. 600/- as interest and Rs. 200/- as costs as assessed by the Court. In all he tendered Rs. 2,760/-. The tender has been held to be valid. As regards eviction of the respondents on the ground that respondent No. 1 has sublet the premises in question to respondent No. 2 without permission of the petitioner, it was observed that only evidence led by the petitioner is the solitary statement of PW-1 Mahant Teja Singh (PW-1), one of the legal representatives of the landlord. On the basis of the said evidence, it was held that the petitioner has failed to prove that respondent No. 1 has left the premises in question and has started residing at Chatiwind Gate, Amritsar. Rather the residence of respondent No. 1 it was observed is in the premises in question which is held to be proved from the ration card forms Ex. RW4/1 and Ex. RW4/2 as well as from the voter list Ex. R1.