- (1.) This revision petition arises out of an application under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called "the Act").
(2.) Gopi Chand, landlord, respondent, obtained an order or ejectment against the tenant, Ram Lal, petitioner, from the premises, in dispute, on the grounds that the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that the tenant had committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building. The Rent Controller passed the order of ejectment on October 20, 1966, and the same was maintained up to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision petition of the tenant vide order dated November 22, 1967. Later on in the execution application filed on behalf of the landlord against the tenant, certain objections were taken which were ultimately dismissed. The application, out of which the present revision petition has arisen, was filed on January 27, 1972, alleging therein that the landlord after obtaining the possession of the shop under sub-paragraph (iii) of 13 (3) (a) of the Act, was using the same and had also let out the THARA to certain tenants and thus, had violated the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. The allegations made in the application were controverted by the landlord and on the pleadings of the parties, the fallowing issues were framed: 1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the present application 2. Whether the respondent has been using the disputed premises for his own useinstead of reconstructing it as alleged in paragraph No. 4 of the application 3. Whether the respondent has let out the thara of the disputed shop to Puran Chand and Mukand Lal as alleged in paragraph no. 5 of the replication 4. Whether the ejectment application is filed against Jugal Kishore respondent is collusive 5. Whether this Court is successor of the Court of Shri R.L. Anand, Rent Controller, or not 6. Whether the applicant is entitled to the restoration of the possession of the demised premises. 7. Relief. The Rent Controller ordered restoration of the shop as he came to the conclusion that the landlord had been using the disputed premises for his own use instead of reconstructing it and the same had been let out to Puran Chand Mukand Lal. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed these findings and consequently dismissed the application filed by the tenant. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) The Provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, read :- "Where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building or rented land in pursuance of an order under sub-paragraph (i) or sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3), does not himself occupy it, or if possession was obtained by him for his family in pursuance of an order under subparagraph (1-a) of paragraph (a) of sub-section (13), his family does not occupy the residential building, or if possession was obtained by him on behalf of his son in pursuance of an order under sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph (a) of sub-section (13), his son does not occupy it for the purpose for which possession was obtained, for a continuous period of twelve months from the date of obtaining possession or where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building under sub-paragraph (iii) of the aforesaid paragraph (a) puts that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant, who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of such building or rented land and the Controller shall make an order accordingly." The Appellate Authority, after going through the whole evidence on the record has given a firm finding that "it will appear from the evidence discussed above that witnesses examined by Ram Lal came up with versions which are quite discrepant. It is not in dispute that since the tenant removed the shutters from the front side of the shop, it got exposed to the danger of pilferage etc. so that the landlord just constructed a wall to secure the property. It is possible that stray instances of hawkers occupying the platform occurred, but that could not mean that the landlord would be responsible therefor. It is also not a disputed fact that Gopi Chand is residing in Delhi with his family and he visits Amritsar seldom. Thus, in such cases, cogent evidence of permission by the landlord to the use of the property by persons who may be in occupation thereof must be insisted upon. The evidence of witnesses examined by Ram Lal is of general or casual nature Ram Lal did not even have the courage to summon and examine Puran Chand or Mukand Lal in support of his allegation that they were tenants or licensees of Gopi Chand. It is equally not proved if Gopi Chand had converted the premises to his use as a store in the manner so attempted to be portrayed by some of the witnesses of Ram Lal. "Once it is held that the landlord had not put the building to his use or had not let it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted therefrom the application under Section 13 (4) of the Act, is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, was unable to point out any illegality or infirmity in the said finding of the Appellate Authority, which may call for any interference in revision.;