L.N.MITTAL - (1.) CM No.13407-CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case Alleged sub-tenant Parvinder Kumar has filed this revision petition Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Act) having been defeated by both the Authorities below.
(2.) COLONEL Surjan Singh and his wife Gurmej Kaur (respondents No.1 and 2 herein/landlords) filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against Deepak Kumar (respondent No.3 herein) as tenant and against Parvinder Kumar petitioner herein as sub-tenant alleging that the disputed shop had been let out to Deepak Kumar vide rent note dated 13.06.2001. Ejectment was sought on various grounds namely non-payment of rent, subletting of the demised shop by Deepak Kumar to Parvinder Kumar, requirement of the demised shop for personal use and occupation as landlord No.1 intends to set up computer centre business in the demised shop having retired from Indian Army, and his son was also coming back from USA to India to join him in the business and also on the ground that the tenant had made alterations in the demised shop. Alleged tenant Deepak Kumar while admitting the tenancy, pleaded that he had repeatedly tendered the rent to the landlords but they had been refusing to receive the same and were insisting to increase the rent. Other grounds of the landlords were also controverted. It was pleaded that he had joined the alleged sub-tenant Parvinder Kumar in demised shop as partner and both of them were running the business in partnership. Later on Deepak Kumar was proceeded against ex parte. Parvinder Kumar alleged sub-tenant contested the ejectment petition and controverted the averments made by the landlords. He pleaded that he is directly tenant under the landlords since the year 1998 @ of Rs. 200/- per month rent. All grounds of ejectment pleaded by the landlords were controverted. It was denied that Deepak Kumar was inducted as tenant in the demised shop on 13.06.2001. Petitioner herein alleged that he was inducted as tenant in the demised shop on rent @ Rs. 200/- per month.
(3.) LEARNED Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide order dated 04.06.2011 allowed the ejectment petition on three grounds namely non- payment of rent, subletting and personal necessity of the landlords. Appeal against the said order preferred by Parvinder Kumar has been dismissed by learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 28.02.2012. Feeling aggrieved, Parvinder Kumar has filed this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.;