- (1.) The landlord-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Sangrur, dated February 2, 1974 whereby the order of the Rent Controller was maintained and the appeal was dismissed.
(2.) Banarsi Dass tenant-respondent took on rent two shops from Jawala Singh petitioner at Rs. 10/- per month for each shop but executed a single note in respect of both the shops. Landlord Jawala Singh filed application for ejectment against tenant Banarsi Dass in respect of both the shops on the ground of arrears of rent and sub-letting. It was alleged that he had sub-let one of the shops to Yusuf respondent No. 2. The application was contested by Banarsi Dass who contended that possession of one of the two shops taken on rent by him was surrendered on November 1, 1965. He denied the allegations that the said shop had been sub-let by him to Yusaf and asserted that the said shop was rented out to Yusaf by the landlord himself. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the respondents are liable to ejectment on the ground of sub-letting 2. Whether the tender is valid 3. Whether the application is malafide 4. Whether the respondent is entitled to meter charges On issue No. 1 it was held by the learned Rent Controller that sub-letting of one of the two shops by the tenant had been proved. Under issue No. 2 it was held that the tender of arrears of rent of one shop was proper and valid. The other shop which was proved to have been sub-let was held to be a separate unit and the non-payment of rent thereof, therefore, did not make the tenant liable for the other shop as well. In view of these findings the learned Rent Controller passed the eviction order in respect of one shop and dismissed the application in respect of the other shop. The landlord feeling aggrieved filed appeal before the Appellate Authority in respect of the one shop qua which the application was dismissed. In appeal the finding of the Rent Controller has been affirmed and it has been held that a consolidated rent for both the shops constituted a single tenancy, but in the instant case the rents were agreed separately for both the shops and as such, there were two separate tenancies for two different units. The sub-letting of one of the units by the tenant, therefore, will not make him liable for eviction from the other shop." Feeling aggrieved against this order, the landlord has come in revision to this Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the tenancy was one and, therefore, if once the sub-letting is proved the tenant is liable to be ejected from the other shop as well. I do not find any force in this contention. It has been found by both the Authorities that though the rent note is one in respect of both the shops but rent has been fixed separately therein, i.e. Rs. 10/- each, and, therefore, it will be deemed to be two separate tenancies for two different units. In my opinion, this is the correct position under the circumstances of the case.;