Rakesh Garg, J. - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of two revision petitions i.e. CR Nos.3661 and 3662 of 2011 as both these petitions have arisen out of two rent applications filed by the petitioner -landlord against the respondents on a similar ground. However, the facts are being taken from CR no. 3661 of 1992.
(2.) THE brief facts emerging out from the impugned orders are that in the ejectment petition, the petitioner averred that respondent no. 1 is a tenant over the rented land at the rate of Rs.8/ -per month who used the rented land by placing a Khokha over it and the respondent was liable to be ejected from the rented land on the following grounds: (i) That after the expiry of the fixed period of tenancy respondent no. 1 became a statutory tenant. (ii) That respondent no. 1 has not made the payment of rent to the petitioner landlord as agreed and therefore now the rent from 1st March, 1981 is due from respondent no. 1. (iii) That respondent no. 1 has totally ceased to occupy the rented land as he has already left for a foreign country and has sublet the demised premises while he was statutory tenant to respondent no. 2, without the written consent of landlord. Upon notice, the respondents appeared and filed written statement pleading that Shivala Damodar Dass has never been managed by the petitioner -Society which is neither registered under the Societies Registration Act, nor has anything to do with the said Mandir i.e Shivala Damodar Dass. It was further averred that the arrears of rent with interest and costs had been tendered on the first date of hearing which were wrongly received by Sh. Bachan Singh. It was further pleaded that no alterations have been effected by him which had affected the value and utility of the rented property in any manner.
(3.) THE petitioner filed replication denying the averments contained in the written reply and reiterating the contents of the ejectment application. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller, Phagwara framed the following issues: 1. Whether the Managing Committee and Bachan Singh have the locus stand to file this ejectment application? OPA. 2. Whether the respondent is entitled to get the tendered amount, refunded from Bachan Singh? OPR. 3. Whether the respondent has effect material alteration which has impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute materially? OPA 4. Whether respondent no. 1 has sublet the premises to respondent no. 2? OPA;