MOHAMMED RAFIQ Vs. SANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SANT Ram and others filed an application for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the Act), against the respondents. Respondents Nos. 4 to 10 were proforma respondents. They are successors-in-interest of one set of landowners sought eviction of Mohd. Rafiq and Alla Fazal on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and that the tenants have created sub-tenancy in favour of Mohd. Altaf respondent No. 3. The tenants contested the application. The learned Rent Controller passed order of eviction in favour of landlords and against the tenants, namely, Mohd. Rafiq and Alla Fazal. The tenants unsuccessfully challenged the order of eviction before the learned Appellate Authority and now they are in revision petition before this Court.

(2.) THE entire approach of the learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority is erroneous and unjust. The undisputed facts are that Mohd. Altaf, the alleged sub-tenant, purchased 2/3rd share of the property in dispute from the original land-owners vide sale deed dated July 14, 1967 and November 18, 1972 and the remaining 1/3rd share was purchased by Alla Fazal. Mr. R.K. Battas, learned counsel for the respondents, has pointed out that the sale in favour of Alla Fazal took place during the pendency of the revision petition in this Court. The fact of the matter is that the original land-owners do not have any subsisting interest in the property. I can take notice of subsequent events, namely that 1/3rd share of the landowners was purchased by Alla Fazal during the pendency of revision petition and their 2/3rd share was purchased by Mohd. Altaf prior to the institution of the eviction application on March 18, 1974. Thus, at the time when I have to pronounce the final judgment, the land-owners have no subsisting interest in the property and they are not entitled to maintain the eviction application. I am not adjudicating rights of Mohd. Rafiq, Mohd. Altaf or Alla Fazal in this petition. Their rights inter se will be adjudicated upon in separate proceedings as and when instituted by them. With these observations, the revision petition is allowed. The eviction application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.