- (1.) Sohan Singh etc. have challenged the impugned order dated 27th March, 1976, of the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide which applications Nos. 145, 147 and 148 of 1975 filed by the respondent against the petitioners have been consolidated.
(2.) The petitioners are the tenants of the respondent. The respondent filed three separate applications under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called "the Act") for the ejectment of the petitioners from the buildings in their possession which are situated on Daresi Road, Ludhiana. The respondent thereafter made an application before the Rent Controller stating that as the common questions of fact and law arise in all the three applications, the same may be consolidated. The learned Rent controller accordingly allowed the application of the respondent and ordered that all the three applications (Nos. 145, 147 and 148 of 1975) be consolidated. It was further ordered that evidence and judgment shall be recorded in application No 141 of 1975.
(3.) Mr. Keer, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that since the evidence and judgment shall be recorded in application No. 147 of 1975 only, the other respondents in the other applications shall not be able to lead evidence in rebuttal. This apprehension of Mr. Keer is unfounded and has no merit. Admittedly, in all the three applications, two grounds of ejectment are common one is non payment of rent and the other is that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Only in two applications, there is an additional ground of making construction without authority and subletting. The respondent being the applicant has to lead his evidence fiat and he will have to prove his case qua all the three tenants and in rebuttal all the three tenants have a right to lead evidence. The issues have to be framed on the basis of the pleadings in each application and on all the issues the applicant has a right to lead evidence to prove the case and the respondents shall have a right to lead evidence in rebuttal. I do not know as to how the petitioners suffer in any matter if all the three applications remain consolidated. The applicant is the same in all the three applications, only the tenants are different, but the main questions of fact and law in all the applications are the same.;