- (1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, whereby the appeal of the landlord against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the eviction application was dismissed.
(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as averred in his eviction petition, the landlord had given on lease the shop situated in the Mandi area of Municipal Committee, Giddarbaha, (hereinafter called the premises in dispute) to Kundan Lal, on an annual rent of Rs. 500/- who continued to pay the rent up to April 1, 1968 and thereafter discontinued to pay the same. It was further averred that the lessee had sublet the premises to Babu Ram, respondent No. 2, without the written consent of the landlord and the sub-lessee had further sublet the same to Ram Gopal. Eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and subletting without consent. Kundan Lal, respondent No. 1, in his reply, denied all the allegations. According to him, he had never taken the premises on lease from the landlord. According to Babu Ram, respondent No. 2, Madan Lal remained on the shop as a tenant upto September, 1969. Thereafter, the premises were leased out to Hakam Rai and Mohinder Pal, sons of Ram Gopal, on September 21, 1969 Ram Gopal, in his statement also filed a reply in similar terms. It was also contended by all the respondents that notice udder Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, had also not been given.
(3.) On May 5, 1971, Ram Gopal, tendered the arrears of rent along with interest and costs which were not accepted by the landlord on the plea that Ram Gopal was not the tenant On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether a proper notice was served by the applicant before the present application ? 2. Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the applicant and the respondent ? 3. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent and subletting ? 4. Relief. The Rent Controller held that Kundan Lal, respondent No. 1, was not proved to have taken the premises on rent from the landlord at any time and therefore, the question of non-payment of arrears of rent and subletting the premises in dispute, by him did not arise. It was also held that as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, was not necessary. Appeal filed by the landlord also met the same fate.;