- (1.) This revision petition is directed against orders of the Courts below by which petition filed by the landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') seeking eviction of the tenants from property No. 141, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana was allowed on the ground of subletting and ceased to occupy.
(2.) In brief, the demised premises was let out by the landlord to Amarjit Singh (Petitioner No. 1), who had further let it out to Avtar Singh (Petitioner No. 2), who had let it out to Gurmit Singh (Respondent No. 2) without the permission of the landlord. In order to challenge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, it was argued before this Court on 29.1.2004 that "learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the appellate authority has misread the evidence when it records that the Petitioner No. 1 is whole time employee of Chawla Sales Agency. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the statement of A.W. 2 Joginder Singh, the proprietor of Chawla Sales Agency, who has deposed that the services of Petitioner No. 1 are utilized for banking services from 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and is thus, only part time employee. The sub-letting is alleged by son in favour of father. Admitted. Stay ejectment provided Petitioner deposits arrears of rent within four weeks and continues to deposit monthly rent by 10th of each month.
(3.) Since, the aforesaid stay was granted ex parte, the landlord filed an application No. 15950-CII-2004 for vacation of ex parte stay on the ground of mis-statement of fact before the Court at the time of admission. Along with the affidavit he also attached the complete statement of Joginder Singh (A.W. 2). In that application, notice was issued to which a reply was filed. On 8.2.2005, following order was passed by this Court: This is an application for vacation of the ex parte stay order granted by this Court on 29.1.2004. Upon notice, the Petitioners have filed reply. After hearing counsel for the parties, it is considered appropriate that the main revision petition is listed for final hearing as anything said while disposing of this application is likely to effect the merits of the controversy involved in this revision. In the circumstances, the revision petition is ordered to be listed for final hearing within three months.;