R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) M /s. Saran Singh Waryam Singh has filed the present rent revision and it has been directed against the judgment dated 4.12.1981 passed by Appellate Authority, Amritsar, who affirmed the order dated 21.12.1979 passed by Shri Baldev Singh, Rent Controller, Amritsar, who allowed the application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by Panna Lal and ordered for the eviction of the present petitioner M/s Saran Singh Waryam Singh along with Jit Singh from the demised premises.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Panna Lal filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act against Jit Singh alleging him as his tenant and M/s. Saran Singh Waryam Singh as sub-tenant by adding his brother Tara Chand, who was co-owner of the demised premises along with the petitioner. The case set up by the landlord in the Court of learned Rent Controller was that Jit Singh took on rent the demised premises from the applicant Panna Lal and respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 1.11.1957 vide rent note Ex.A1 at a monthly rental of Rs. 60/-. The tenancy was oral and accompanied by delivery of possession. In order to reduce the terms of the tenancy into writing a rent note was executed by Jit Singh in favour of the applicant and respondent No. 3 Tara Chand. The tenancy was terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act vide notice dated 27.1.1975. According to the landlord the tenant and sub-tenant are liable to be evicted from the premises because Jit Singh has neither paid nor tendered the rent w.e.f. 7.6.1983; he has sublet the demised premises to M/s Saran Singh Waryam Singh without the written consent of the landlord and that the respondents have ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period exceeding four months and the premises are lying locked and closed. Notice of the rent petition was given to the respondent. It was only contested by respondent No. 2 M/s. Saran Singh Waryam Singh. Jit Singh and Tara Chand were proceeded ex parte. According to respondent No. 2, Jit Singh was never a tenant in the demised premises under the applicant and Tara Chand. He never came into possession of the demised premises. The alleged rent note executed by Jit Singh in favour of Panna Lal and Tara Chand is a sham and fictitious document and is inadmissible in evidence. It is in fact respondent No. 2 i.e. the present petitioner, who is tenant in the demised premises from the very inception. It was let out at the instance of the applicant Panna Lal and his brother Tara Chand. Respondent No. 1 never inducted respondent No 2 as sub-tenant. Rather respondent No. 2 is a direct tenant under the landlords. Respondent No. 2 has never ceased to occupy the demised premises. Respondent No. 2 tendered the arrears of rent w.e.f. 7.6.1973 to 6.8.1975 along with interest and cost.
(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the tenancy of respondent No. 1 has been terminated by a valid notice ? OPA 2. Whether tenancy between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 on the one hand and respondent No. 1 on the other is a sham and fictitious and whether respondent No. 2 is real tenant of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 ? OPR (Respondent No. 2). 3. Whether the respondent No. 1 and 2 have ceased to occupy the demised premises continuously for a period of more than one year ? OPA 4. Whether the respondents are liable to ejectment on the ground of non- payment of rent ? OPA 4-A. Whether the applicant alone has locus standi to file this application ? OPA 4-B. Whether respondent No. 1 has sublet the demised premises to respondent No. 2 without the written consent of the petitioner? If so its effect ? OPA 5. Relief." ;