- (1.) The tenant is in revision against orders of the Courts below by which eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short ''the Act''] has been allowed.
(2.) In brief, the case set up by the landlord is that he had let out one room, being part of building No. B.VII-786, situated at Lakkar Bazar, Ludhiana to the first Respondent at the monthly rent of Rs. 200/- w.e.f. 01.06.1973 after settling memorandum of terms for using it as a godown for storing bardana (empty/used gunny bags). The landlord sought eviction of the first Respondent alleging that he is in arrears of rent @ Rs. 200/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.1989 and has ceased to occupy the building after subletting it to the second Respondent without his consent and is getting Rs. 2000/- per month from him. The first Respondent filed his written statement in which he categorically denied that he had ever taken the alleged one room from the landlord on rent nor had ever entered into possession as a tenant, therefore, the question of non-payment of arrears of rent and subletting does not arise. The second Respondent filed his separate written statement in which he had alleged that he is a direct tenant under the landlord. He denied that the tenancy had commenced from 01.06.1973 and any memorandum of terms was settled. It was rather averred that his father Som Nath was a tenant in the portion of the property comprising of one room, store and miani which was taken on rent at the monthly rent of Rs.250/- which was later on increased to the tune of Rs.300/- per month and further to the tune of Rs.400/- per month in which his father was running the business of old gunny bags under the name and style of M/s. Som Nath Harish Chander.His father Som Nath unfortunately died on 21.07.1988 and after his death, he had inherited the tenancy rights and is carrying on the same business under the same name and style of M/s Som Nath Harish Chander. It was also alleged that he has been making payment of the rent to the landlord which stood paid @Rs.800/- per month up to August, 1997. He is an Income Tax Assessee and maintaining his account books. The rent so paid has been sown in the account books by him as also in the income tax returns. It was also alleged that he is ready to make the payment of rent if any due, but the landlord has not claimed any rent from him. The landlord then filed replication in respect of both the written statements. After the pleadings were over, the first Respondent did not choose to appear and was proceeded against ex-parte. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues: - 1. Whether the Respondents is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.04.1989 as alleged?OPP. 2. Whether the Respondent No. 1 has ceased to occupy the building and sublet the same to Respondent No. 2 without the consent of the Petitioner?OPP.
(3.) Whether the petition filed by Petitioner is not maintainable?OPR.;