R.L.ANAND,J - (1.) THIS is a landlord's revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 11.8.1988 passed by the appellate authority, Ludhiana, who, allowed the appeal of the tenant and dismissed the cross-objections of the landlord as a result of which the ejectment application filed by the landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act No. 3 of 1949 was dismissed. The appellate authority left the parties to bear their own costs.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Shambhu Dayal deceased, represented by his legal representatives Smt. Sohag Wanti and others, filed the ejectment application under Section 13 of the aforesaid Act against the tenant M/s Ganesh Iron Store and others, respondents for their eviction from the property in disputed numbered as Industrial Shed No. 495, Industrial Area, B, Ludhiana which was given on monthly rent of Rs. 350/- for a period of four months starting from 28.5.1965 to 27.9.1965 and in lieu of the tenancy M/s Ganesh Iron Store, executed a rent note on 6.6.1995 in favour of the original landlord Seth Shambhu Dayal (deceased). The entire property consisted of a boundary wall, four rooms, one shed and a hand pump but out of these three rooms, with the shed, were let out to respondent No. 1. There was a verandah in front of these three rooms which also forms part of the tenancy. It is alleged by the landlord that the tenant took the property on rent for the purpose of sale of iron rods but he has changed the user of the property. It was further alleged by the landlord that respondent has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent with effect from 1.4.1981 besides house tax. He has committed such acts which materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. The respondent-tenant without the written consent of the landlord has raised a roof of the shed by fixing iron tresses. He has also laid flooring and demolished the old latrine and constructed new flush latrine. He has removed a part of the wall between two rooms and opened a door connecting the two rooms as shown by mark A in the plan attached with the plaint. He has also hammered angle iron in the north-east corner at the junction of room and verandah. It was further alleged by the petitioner- landlord that respondent has sublet the premises and had parted the possession of the demised premises to respondents No. 2 to 6. Further maintaining that respondents are guilty for the change of user, the case set up by the landlord is that when the property was let out, it was let out for storage of iron rods and for the sale thereof. Now the tenant has started manufacturing nuts in the premises in dispute and for that purpose it has installed the iron press in the shed which was under construction when Engineer Shri B.C. Katyal visited the premises on 7.2.1981. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that respondent has illegally taken a power connection in the premises for which underground iron has been laid. Notice of the ejectment petition was given to the respondents. They filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to the respondent he has neither impaired the value and utility of the property nor he has changed the user of the property. The property was let out to him for running commercial and manufacturing activities. He is maintaining the same business. He has not sublet the premises. He is still in control of the demised premised and in these circumstances, no case for ejectment is made out.
(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues on 15.2.1983 :- 1. Whether the respondents are liable to ejectment on the grounds mentioned in para No. 2 of the petition ? OPPA 2. Whether the petition is signed by the petitioner ? OPR 3. Whether the ejectment petition is not maintainable ? OPR 4. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder of the parties ? OPR 5. Relief. ;