VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 4.4.1994 passed by the Rent Controller, Nabha, affirmed by the Appellate Authority, Patiala, vide order dated 20.2.1995, on the ground of sub-letting.
(2.) THE respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant along with Siri Ram, allegedly sub-tenant, from the shop measuring 7' x 14' bearing property No. IV-1228/1229, situated on Sadhu Ram Dharamshala Road, Nabha. The case set up by the landlord respondent No. 1 was that the premises in dispute was taken on lease by the petitioner herein at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- without roof thereof. A rent note was executed between the parties and the tenant-petitioner had agreed to pay all the taxes imposed upon the shop. The case of the landlord was that the tenant-petitioner did not prove to be a good tenant as he was not paying rent to her as well as the taxes and, therefore, ejectment was sought on the following grounds :- "(i) Respondent No. 1 has failed to pay the rent of the demised property w.e.f. 1.6.1994. He has also not paid the house tax due and paid by her in the year 1991-92 as assessed by the Municipal Committee. The rent of electric meter, which is installed in this shop in the name of her husband and which is Rs. 5-50 p.m. is also due from him, since June 1991; (ii) Respondent No. 1 without her express or implied consent has further leased out the demised premises respondent No. 2 for stitching purposes. (iii) She requires the demised premises for her married son's residence who has got two children aged 3 years and 2 years. Her daughter-in- law often quarrels with her for separate residence. In these circumstances, the joint residence in the present house is not possible. This house is insufficient to accommodate both the families. She wants to convert the shop in dispute into residential one by merging the same with the back residential potion and wants to shift her that son to the said premises. He is employed in Punjab National Bank whereas his wife is employed in State Bank of India, at Nabha. Neither she herself nor her son vacated any other house in the past nor they are in exclusive possession of any other house."
(3.) THE application was contested by the tenant-petitioner. In the reply filed by him it was admitted that the shop in dispute was taken on rent @ Rs. 20/- per month, but the other contentions were denied. It was claimed that the roof of the shop was part and parcel of the demised shop. He also denied that he had sub-let the premises to respondent No. 2. He further claimed that he was not known to him. It was also claimed that the property being commercial, the ground of personal necessity was not available to the landlord. It was also claimed that she had already sold one house adjoining to the shop to one Chattar Pal son of Nand Lal. The further stand of the tenant petitioner was that the landlord wanted to dispose of the property along with the attached house. It was also claimed that she had even approached him (tenant). However, he had shown his unwillingness and expressed his inability to purchase the same. Thus it was claimed by the tenant-petitioner that the application was filed a mala fide intention.;