R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 29.4.1982 passed by the appellate authority, Kapurthala, who dismissed the appeal of the tenant by affirming the order dated 22.12.1979 passed by the Rent Controller who had allowed the petition of the landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Shri Shehdev Singh filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Rent Restriction Act against Pt. Hans Raj, Shri Shiv Charan Singh and Shri Manohar Lal, seeking their ejectment from a set of three shops situated in Sabzi Mandi, Kapurthala and the case set up by the petitioner in the Court of Rent Controller was that Shri Hans Raj had taken three shops in dispute from him at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- per month and he is liable to ejectment on the ground that he had sublet the premises to respondents No. 2 and 3 without the consent of the landlord. Furthermore respondent No. 1 Pt. Hans Raj is in arrears of rent since 1.2.1974. He was materially impaired the value and utility of the premises by making unauthorised construction and by putting them to improper use. It was also pleaded by the landlord that respondent is using the shops for the purpose other than for which these were let out. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. The respondents took the stand that it is Atamdev Singh who is the landlord in respect of the shop in dispute and not Shri Shehdev Singh. On merits it is the stand of respondent No. 1 that since he is a tenant in these shops under Atamdev Singh for the last many years, therefore, Shri Shehdev Singh was not his landlord and thus, there does not exist relationship of landlord and tenant. Respondent No. 1 also denied the other allegations in toto and from the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? OPA 2. If the above issue is proved, whether the respondent is in arrears of rent ? OPA 3. Whether the respondent has sublet the premises to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 without written permission of the applicant ? OPA 4. Whether respondent No. 1 has committed such acts whereby the value and utility of the premises has been materially diminished ? OPA 5. Whether the respondent No. 1 has put the premises to different use than for which it was let out ? OPA 6. Relief.
(3.) PARTIES led oral and the documentary evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 22.12.1979 allowed the ejectment application by holding that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Since respondent No. 1 has not paid the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 22/- per month, therefore, he is liable to be evicted. The tenant was not satisfied with the order of ejectment. He filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 15 of the said Act and his appeal was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 29.4.1982.;