- (1.) The petitioners-respondents have directed the present revision petition against the order dated 7.9.1989 passed by Shri M.S. Sehmee, Appellate Authority (under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act), Ludhiana vide which the appeal preferred by the landlord against the order dated 27.10.1986 vide which the eviction petition was dismissed by Shri O.P. Goyal, PCS, Rent Controller, Ludhiana stood set aside and the respondents-petitioners were directed to hand over the vacant and physical possession of their tenanted premises to the landlord/respondents within a period of two months from 7.9.1989. The facts narrated in the petition are that Nirmal Dass, father of the landlord Tulsi Dass was the original owner of the property in dispute. In the year 1970, Dev Raj respondent No. 1 took three shops on the ground floor along with two rooms, one kitchen and one bath room on the first floor and three Miyanies on the second floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. Later on, there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and in July 1974 Dev Raj took more accommodation consisting of one store, one compound with effect from 1.7.1974 and the rent was then enhanced to Rs. 250/- per month. He also executed a rent note on 10.7.1974 in favour of Nirmal Dass in respect of the tenanted property. In the month of March 1975, he again approached the landlord Nirmal Dass to let out the remaining portion of the building to him after necessary renovation and accordingly the entire property was let out to him by Nirmal Dass on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. Dev Raj tenant also agreed to pay house tax in addition to the rent. The said Nirmal Dass died on 24.8.1979. He was succeeded by his only son Tulsi Dass, the present landlord. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant Dev Raj and the sub tenants Ved Parkash and others on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.11.1975 along with house tax at the rate of 15% and also on the ground of sub-letting by Dev Raj to the other respondents No. 2 to 6 without the written consent of the landlord.
(2.) The respondents contested the eviction application filed by the landlord/appellant and filed separate written statements. Dev Raj respondent admitted that he was occupying the entire property as a tenant under the father of the appellant on payment of Rs. 200/- per month. He, however, denied that there was any agreement to pay the house tax by him. He admitted the raising of the rent from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per month w.e.f. 1.7.1984 in favour of Nirmal Dass, in respect of the property in dispute. He denied that the rent was ever increased to Rs. 400/- per month. He, however, admitted that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are the tenants under him at the rate of rent being Rs. 80/- each in the case of respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and Rs. 70/- in case of respondent No. 5 and pleaded that they had been paying rent to him up to the year 1975. He further pleaded that respondent No. 6 was also accommodated by him by letting out a chaubara to him on the first floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. Dev Raj, therefore, admitted the creation of tenancy in his favour and sub tenancy in favour of all the five respondents namely respondent Nos. 2 to 6. He also admitted that he is in arrears of rent with effect from 1.11.1975.
(3.) Respondents No. 3 to 5 filed a joint written reply whereas respondent No. 2 filed a separate written reply. They contested the petition and raised preliminary objections that as there are separate shops in their possession, so the eviction application is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties and cause of action; the petition is not maintainable in the present form as they are direct tenants under Tulsi Dass on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/- each inclusive of house tax. Dev Raj has nothing to do with this property as he was never inducted as a tenant either by the appellant or his father and that he is colluding with the landlord while seeking their ejectment. It has been further alleged that Nirmal Dass father of the appellant admitted them to be tenants by sending them notices dated 11.1.1979 through Shri M.L. Jhanji, Advocate, Ludhiana and so the appellant is estopped by act and conduct of his father from filing the present eviction application. Nirmal Dass, father of the landlord Tulsi Dass received and accepted rent from them in the Courts at Ludhiana in eviction petitions filed against them, which were later on withdrawn and so the present application is barred under Section 14 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short - "the Act") and under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short - the "CPC"). They denied that Dev Raj was ever inducted as tenant in the disputed property at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- which was enhanced to Rs. 250/- and then increased to Rs. 400/- per month by renting him out other portions of the property. The execution of the rent note dated 10.7.1974 by Dev Raj in favour of Nirmal Dass was also denied and alleged that the said rent note is fabricated by the landlord in collusion with Dev Raj. Denying other averments they prayed for dismissal of the petition.;