LAWS(P&H)-1977-12-21

KARTAR SINGH Vs. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AND ANR.

Decided On December 09, 1977
KARTAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
Vijay Kumar And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, vide which Kartar Singh tenant-petitioner has been ordered to vacate the premises in dispute.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that Vijay Kumar, landlord-respondent, filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Sarwan Singh son of Atma Singh and Kartar Singh son of Hira Singh, in respect of one Ahata comprising of one room, one deohri and courtyard with a chhappar made of corrogated sheets in front of the deohri, situate in Lakkar Mandi, Batala, described with the words " A B C D E F G H M N O" in the plan attached with the petition, alleging that Sarwan Singh was inducted as a tenant by him in the demised premises vide rent deed dated 14.2.1964 for a period of eleven months at a monthly rent of Rs. 70/-, with a clear stipulation in the deed that he (Sarwan Singh) was not to sublet any portion of the deohri marked "H G I F" out of the demised premises to Kartar Singh, who is running his business in the name and style of Kartar Electric Works. Thus according to the landlord, Sarwan Singh tenant had forfeited his right to remain as a tenant and was liable to eviction. It was further pleaded by the landlord that Sarwan Singh had not paid or tendered the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 725/- for the period ending 14.10.1967 and prayed that both Sarwan Singh and Kartar Singh should be ordered to be evicted from the demised premises.

(3.) Sarwan Singh admitted the claim of the applicant-respondent in its entirety. He further pleaded that he had sublet the portion mentioned in the application, to Kartar Singh at a monthly rent of Rs 23/- but he had done so to the knowledge of Shri Dev Parkash, father of the applicant-respondent. Regarding the arrears, he pleaded that only Rs. 620/- were due from him and that the applicant-respondent had refused to accept the same when the amount was offered to him.