VINOD K.SHARMA,J. - (1.) THE landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of the respondents from the shop situated in Sadar Bazar, Dhuri on the plea that Barkha Ram father of the respondent was tenant in the shop in dispute @ 40/- per month from 6.4.1974 to 5.4.1977.
(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner-landlord that Barkha Ram died on 24.1.1977, who had executed a registered Will in favour of his son Ved Parkash respondent No. 1 bequeathing his all moveable and immovable property including the rights of the shop in dispute. It was claimed that after the death of Barkha Ram, Ved Parkash did not make the payment of rent as respondent No. 1 was in service at Delhi Development Authority, Delhi as Section Officer, who succeeded to the rights of the tenancy of the premises in question. Thus, the eviction of respondent was sought on the ground that respondent No. 1 is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.1976 and that respondent No. 1 has sublet the premises in dispute to respondent No. 2 without the written consent of the petitioner. The petition was not contested by respondent No. 1 i.e. Ved Parkash. However, respondent No. 2 Som Nath appeared and tendered the rent on the first date of hearing along with interest and costs. The petitioner did not accept the tender on the plea that respondent Som Nath was not tenant in the premises in dispute. The stand taken by respondent Som Nath was that the premises in dispute was taken by firm named Barkha Ram Som Nath @ 40/- per month although no lease deed was executed by Barkha Ram. It was claimed that rent of the shop in dispute was paid out of the funds of the firm of Barkha Ram Som Nath in which he was partner along with his father. Lateron the firm Som Nath Naresh Kumar was constituted in which Barkha Ram and Som Nath were the partners and rent of the shop was paid out of the funds of the firm of Som Nath Naresh Kumar. It was claimed that Barkha Ram executed a Will dated 20.4.1976 whereby he bequeathed all his rights in the shop in dispute including tenancy rights in favour of Som Nath as he was working with his father Barkha Ram in the shop in dispute since 1965. It was claimed that respondent No. 2 was exclusive owner of the business being carried in the shop in dispute. Ved Parkash has not inherited the tenancy rights of Barkha Ram in the shop in dispute after his death on 24.1.1977. The plea of subletting was denied as all other averments made by the landlord in the petition. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller : 1. Whether Barkha Ram tenanted the premises in dispute for the use of the premises for M/s. Barkha Ram Som Nath ? OPR 2. Whether Barkha Ram revoked the will in favour of Ved Parkash and executed it in favour of Som Nath respondent No. 2 ? OPR 3. Whether Ved Parkash has sublet the premises to Som Nath ? OPA 4. Relief." The parties led their evidence in support of their respective claims.
(3.) THE learned Rent Controller on issue No. 2 held that it was that Barkha Ram took on rent the shop in dispute in his own name, who died on 24.1.1977 leaving behind both respondents as his legal heirs along with some other legal heirs. The plea of the landlord is that respondent No. 1 became the tenant in the shop in dispute after the death of Barkha Ram under a registered Will executed by Barkha Ram in his favour. The case set up by the respondent tenant was that he became tenant in the shop in dispute under Will dated 20.4.1976 as the earlier Will stood revoked.;