- (1.) This revision petition by Smt. Puran Devi alias Puro has been directed against the judgment and order, dated the 18th October, 1975, passed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dismissing the petitioner's appeal with costs against the order, dated 20th March, 1974, of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, accepting the application of Smt. Harjit Kaur respondent under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) and ordering the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Smt. Harjit Kaur respondent filed an application under section 13 of the Act on the grounds that she is the owner of the premises in dispute as the same were transferred permanently in her favour by the Rehabilitation Department in the year 1953, that the petitioner was in possession of one room as a statutory tenant under the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-, that prior to the purchase of the property in question by the respondent, the petitioner was occupying the room aforesaid as an allottee under the Custodian and, after the purchase, the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 10/- per, mensem as rent to the respondent, and that notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given to the petitioner. The ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed premises was sought on the grounds that she had not paid the rent since Ist August 1951. that she had sublet a portion of the tenancy premises to Sham Lal Washerman, respondent No. 2, without the written consent of the respondent, that the respondent bonafide required the premises in dispute for her personal use and occupation and her family as she had got only one room in her possession, that she was not possessing any residential building within the urban area concerned nor she had vacated the possession thereof and had to shift from Delhi, and further that the petitioner had taken the room in dispute for residential purposes only but now she had converted the use of the same from residential to non residential. The petitioner resisted the said application on the grounds, inter alia, that she is allottee of the demised promises at a monthly rent of Rs. 1.50 Paise since 1947, and not at the alleged rent of Rs. 10/. per mensem, and tendered the arrears of rent at the aforesaid rate alongwith interest and costs on the first date of hearing, that the respondent did not require the demised, premises for her own necessity as she had a big hall in her possession, and that she had not changed the user of the demised premises as alleged. Since the arrears of Rent etc., had been paid on the first date of hearing, the only issue before the rent Controller was whether the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were liable to ejectment from the demised premises on the other grounds alleged by the respondent. After recording evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the Rant Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the respondent required the premises in question for her personal use and occupation, the other grounds of ejectment were not established.
(3.) While admitting the revision petition on 14th November, 1975, R. N. Mittal, J., ordered stay of dispossession of the petitioner meanwhile, and issued notice regarding stay. When the stay matter came up for hearing before the learned Judge on 16th January, 1976, the following order was passed :- "..... He (Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the applicant) further undertaken that the remaining rent upto February 29, 1976, will be deposited till February 15, 1976. He also undertakes that thereafter the applicant will remit the rent every month by 15th of each month in advance to the respondent. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the rent or remit the rent as undertaken by him, the stay order, which has been granted, shall stand vacated. I confirm the stay order subject to the above conditions. The revision petition may be listed for early hearing". Thereafter the petitioner filed C. M. No. 1371/C-II of 1976, stating that she had remitted the arrears of rent and also the rent due upto April 1976, but still the respondent No. 1 refused to accept the money order and got an ejectment order from the Rent Controller by misrepresenting facts and got the premises vacated in her absence and took the custody of the articles and goods belonging to the petitioner and kept the same under lock and key. She, therefore, prayed that the order for restitution be made and she put in possession of the premises with then direction to the aforesaid respondent to hand over all. the belongings to the petitioner. Notice of this application was given to the said respondent, who filed an affidavit denying all the allegations of the petitioner and maintained that as the petitioner committed default in making the payment of rent, she was entitled to get the petitioner evicted in terms of this Court's order, dated 16th January, 1976. A preliminary objection was also taken in the reply regarding the maintainability of the aforesaid C. M. No. 1371/C-II of 1976. Vide my order, dated 16th July, 1976, I ordered the return of the articles of the petitioner to her by the respondent. Thereafter I ordered that this revision petition be fixed for final hearing so that the entire dispute between the parties could be decided once for all.;