- (1.) The facts leading to the controversy in this revision petition are as under.
(2.) The petitioner landlord filed an application for ejectment against the respondents under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') from shop No. 12/207 along with one room on its back situated on the Amritsar Tarn Taran road, Tarn Taran. It was averred in the application that the shop in dispute was given on rent to Gulwinder Singh on June 30, 1964 at the rate of Rs. 30 per month vide rent note executed in favour of the landlord. Another rent note was also executed by Gulwinder Singh respondent No. 1 on March 29, 1966 for the back portion of the shop at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month. As such the entire premises were rented out to him on the condition that he will not start dry fodder business or a confectioner's shop and that he would also not sublet it. It is further alleged that both these conditions have been contravened by respondent No. 1 and he had sublet the premises to his father Jaswant Singh respondent No. 2 and had started dry fodder business there which is a nuisance to him.
(3.) This application was resisted by respondent No. 2 who denied the allegation in the application and controverted the same. It was pleaded that respondent No. 1 never took the shop in dispute from the petitioner landlord nor he entered into it, that respondent No. 1 is a close friend of the landlord and that the relations between respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1 are strained and it is he who had taken the premises on rent directly from the landlord and the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between him and the petitioner. The parties contested on the following issues. 1. Whether the premises in dispute were leased out by the applicant No. 1 vide the two rent deeds dated 30.6.1964 and 29.2.1966 OPA. 2. Whether the respondent has committed a breach of the terms of the rent deeds, if so its effect OPA. 3. Whether respondent No. 1 has sublet the shop portion of the premises in dispute to respondent No. 2 OPA. 4. Whether there exists relationship of tenant and landlord between respondent No. 2 and the applicant OPA. 5. If issue No. 4 is proved what is the effect of the non service of the notice on respondent No. 2 OPA 6. What is the effect of the non payment of the rent by respondent No. 1 and the tendering of the same by respondent No. 2 OP. Parties. 7. Whether respondent No. 1 has impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute OPA. 8. Whether the applicant required the shop and the baithak in dispute for his own use and occupation OPA. 9. Relief.;