Bal Raj Tuli, J. - (1.) THE Landlord, Krishan Kumar, filed a petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for the ejectment of his tenants, Baldev Raj Singh and Kishan Chand, on various grounds mentioned in that petition. Sant Ram was also made a respondent on the ground that a portion of the demised premises had been sublet to him. Krishan Kumar was then a minor but has since attained majority and has filed this revision petition himself.
(2.) IT is stated in the petition for ejectment that Baldev Raj Singh and Kishan Chand were tenants of the petitioner and had taken the premises on lease per rent -deed dated April 28, 1961 agreeing to pay Rs. 45/ - per mensem. The said tenants were permitted to raise constructions which they were entitled to remove at the time of vacating the premises. One of the grounds for ejectment mentioned in the petition was as under : - - The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have partitioned the said premises between themselves since about eight months. The northern portion shown red in the plan has fallen to the share of respondent No. 1 and the southern green portion has fallen to the share of respondent No. 2 and each of them has started separate business, though originally the premises were taken by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for their joint business of saw mills which was started in the name of Guru Amar Dass Saw Mills. All changes had been made by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 illegally and unauthorisedly without the permission of the petitioner. In answer to this plea, the said respondents, in their written statement, denied that they had partitioned the premises between themselves and that the alleged northern portion had fallen to the share of respondent No. 1 and the southern portion to the share of respondent No. 2, and that they had started separate business therein. It was also denied that they had originally taken the said property for their joint business of saw mills. It was however, asserted that they continued as joint tenants under the petitioner as before and, in any case, any internal arrangement regarding the user of the demised premises between them did not constitute and breach of the terms of the rent -deed nor did it require any permission of the landlord nor furnished any ground for the ejectment of the tenants. The learned Rent Controller, by his order dated December 28, 1967, dismissed the petition on the ground that the ejectment of the tenants could not be ordered on any of the grounds mentioned in the petition. Against that order, Krishan Kumar filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned appellate Authority on February 2, 1969. The learned. Appellate Authority held that grounds mentioned at (c), (d) and (f) of para 2 of the petition did disclose a cause of action against the tenants and the sub -tenant. He affirmed the order of the Rent Controller with regard to grounds (b) and (e). Ground (a) related to the non -payment of rent which was given up after the tenants tendered the rent due on the first date of hearing of the petition. The case was remanded to the Rent Controller with a direction to dispose of the ejectment petition in the light of the observations made in the appellate order.
(3.) AFTER remand, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition on May 6, 1971, holding that grounds (c), (d) and (f) of para 2 of the petition had not been established. Against that order, Krishan Kumar filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority Gurdaspur. During the pendency of that appeal, Kishan Chand died and an application was made for bringing on record his legal representatives. That application was contested by Baldev Raj Singh on the ground that the tenancy of Kishan Chand deceased had come to an end on account of his death and it was not necessary to implead his heirs and legal representatives as respondents to the appeal. It was further submitted that the possession of the heirs and legal representatives of Kishan Chand of the demised premises after his death was not as tenants. He asserted that he was in possession of the tenanted property as a tenant but the legal representatives of Kishan Chand deceased had assumed joint possession of the said property along with him even without his consent but their possession was not in the capacity of tenants. The application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, on January 6, 1973, on the ground that the legal representatives of Kishan Chand could not be be brought on the record and that the appeal had to be considered as having abated so far as Kishan Chand deceased tenant was concerned. The present revision petition is directed against that order of the learned Appellate Authority.;