- (1.) The only point involved in this petition for revision under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act) is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant terminates on the landlord obtaining an order of eviction under section 13 of the Act. The facts relevant for the purpose of determining the point are these : Two shops situate at Railway Road, Rohtak, were leased out by Laxmi Chand petitioner to Sham Das and Hari Chand, respondents, on a rent of Rs. 72/8/- per mensem. No lease-deed is produced and it is not clear when the tenancy started. On 4th August, 1954, Laxmi Chand submitted an application for ejectment of his tenants on the grounds (1) that the shops were required for the landlord's personal use and (ii) that the shops had been sublet by the tenants. On the following day, viz. 5th August, 1954, the parties entered into a compromise, according to the terms of which one year was allowed to the tenants to vacate the shops. An eviction order in terms of the compromise was passed. Possession having not been delivered on the expiry of the stipulated period, the landlord took out execution of the order of ejectment in his favour. The execution application was finally consigned to the record room on 2nd December, 1955, as unsatisfied. Another application for execution was presented by the landlord on 16th November, 1957. This, too ended in a compromise dated 10th December, 1957, according to which the tenants were allowed to continue in possession till 1st August, 1960. The tenants then submitted the present application under section 4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent in respect of the shops. Without going into the merits of the case, the Rent Controller dismissed the application because he held the view that the relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased to exist when the order of ejectment was made and, therefore, an application for fixation of fair rent was not competent. On appeal preferred by the tenants, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller and remanded the case for the fixation of fair rent in accordance with law. This is a petition for revision preferred by Laxmi Chand, the landlord.
(2.) Mr. Shamair Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the agreement between the parties did not have the effect of discharging or extinguishing the order of eviction, as the agreement merely related to the time or manner of its enforcement. Certain authorities are also cited in support of the contention. The position of law in this respect is absolutely clear and is not being disputed. According to the first agreement (Ex. P. 2) the landlord allowed the tenants to remain in possession of the shops for another year, meaning thereby that the order of ejectment was not to be executed till then. A similar agreement was arrived at in the course of the second execution proceedings and thereby the tenants were allowed to continue in possession till 1st August, 1960. The agreements merely postponed the performance of the order, they did not have the effect of creating a new tenancy or of discharging the order of eviction. That, however, does not, in any way, advance the case for the petitioner, for I see no force in Mr. Shamair Chand's second contention that the relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end on the passing of the ejectment order, which still subsists and is enforceable. Sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act, under which the present application was presented reads :- "4. Determination of fair rent - (1) The Controller shall on application by the tenant or landlord of a building or rented land fix the fair rent for such building or rented land after holding such inquiry as the Controller thinks fit."
(3.) The expression 'tenant' is defined by section 2(i) to mean "any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building or rented land by its tenants, unless with the consent in writing of the landlord, or * * *". The definition leaves no doubt that a tenant continuing in possession even after the termination of the tenancy in his favour would still be a tenant for purposes of section 4 of the Act. So long as the tenant is not actually evicted he would, even though in the common parlance he may be regarded only as an ex-tenant, still fall within the above definition of a tenant. The only limitation is that he must not have lost possession; as long as the test of possession is satisfied, he is to be regarded as a tenant within the extended meaning for the purposes of the Act.;