R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a landlords' revision petition and has been directed against the judgment dated 19th September, 1981 passed by the Court of Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, who allowed the appeal of Shri Prem Sagar by reversing the finding of the learned Rent Controller on two issues and dismissed and ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Shri Sohan Lal is the father of Shri Rattan Lal. They were applicants before the Rent Controller. They jointly filed an ejectment application against Shri Prem Sagar seeking ejectment from the demised premises which is H.H. No. 224 situated in Ward No. 10, Mata Rani Mohalla, Khanna. It was alleged that applicant No. 1 Shri Rattan Lal is the owner of the house in dispute and this house was taken on rent by Shri Prem Sagar from applicant No. 2 Shri Sohan Lal who is the father of applicant No. 1 at the monthly rent of Rs. 150/- in February 1968. At that time applicant No. 1 Shri Rattan Lal was a minor. Now he has become major. Therefore, he is entitled to recover the rent from respondent Shri Prem Sagar. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground that the tenant has not paid the house tax; the house in question is required by applicant No. 1 Rattan Lal for his personal use and occupation and he wants to shift to Khanna to do his business. It was also alleged that applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2 are not occupying any residential building nor they have vacated any such building within the Municipal Limits of Khanna after coming into force the said Act. Notice of the ejectment application was given to the tenant. According to the respondent, the house in question was purchased by Shri Brij Lal in the year 1965 in the name of applicant No. 1 Shri Rattan Lal. Brij Lal is the maternal grand-father of applicant No. 1. He is the real owner of the house in dispute and he rented out the premises in dispute to respondent Shri Prem Sagar and he rented the house in dispute to one Shri Sham Lal. Sham Lal vacated the same and then it was rented out to the present respondent Shri Prem Sagar who is none else but the nephew of Shri Brij Lal. It was rented with the stipulation that the respondent would effect the repairs and the rate of rent agreed upon was Rs. 35.00 per month. Respondent invested Rs. 5000/- for the repairs of the house. He had been paying rent regularly to Brij Lal upto 31st October, 1977. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is also alleged that the petitioner No. 1 is living at Ludhiana with his parents and is employed in a private firm. It was also pleaded by the respondent that the lease deed in favour of applicant No. 1 Shri Rattan Lal is benami because he was a minor in the year 1975. The rate of rent was not Rs. 150/- per month, rather the rate of rent was Rs. 35/- per month and the premises in question was taken on rent from Shri Brij Lal. No house-tax was payable by the respondent. By denying other allegations, the respondent Prem Sagar prayed for dismissal of the ejectment application.
(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court/Rent Controller framed the following issues : 1. Whether the tender of the arrears of rent made by the respondent is invalid ? OPR 2. Whether the petitioner requires the premises in dispute bonafide for their personal use and occupation ? OPP 3. Whether the petitioners are not owners/landlord of the premises in dispute qua the respondent ? OPR 4. Relief. ;