S.P. Goyal, J. - (1.) - Behari Lal, petitioner, filed an application under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for eviction of the respondent from the shop in dispute on several grounds, but the only ground which survives in this petition by him is as to whether the tender made by the tenant of arrears of rent was invalid.
(2.) According to the landlord, the shop was let out to the tenant at the rate of Rs. 40 per month for one year with a stipulation in the rent note that in case the shop was sold by the landlord and the purchaser did not agree to allow the tenant to continue, he would vacate the shop and in case of failure, pay rent at the rate of Rs. 80 per month. It was alleged in the petition that the landlord entered into an agreement with one Kishan Lal to sell the shop, and, therefore, asked the tenant to vacate the same. He having failed to do so, the arrears of rent were claimed at the rate of Rs. 80 per month. The tenant, however, tendered the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 40 only. The Rent Controller held that the agreement of sale was not genuine and that the said agreement had come to an end with the expiry of the lease period. He further held that even if the agreements survived it was against the provisions of Sec. 7 of the Act and, therefore, not enforceable. The finding of the Rent Controller was confirmed, on appeal, by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated Jan. 5, 1974. Still dissatisfied, the landlord has come up in this revision petition.
(3.) The two Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the alleged agreement of sale between the landlord and Krishan Lal was a sham transaction and only an excuse to increase the rent. Nothing has been urged by the learned counsel which could show that the said finding was vitiated by any error of law or was otherwise improper on the evidence available on record. This petition, therefore, has to be dismissed on this short ground alone. On the other two grounds also, I do not find any reason to take a different view. The period of lease mentioned in the rent note, Exhibit A-1 was one year and on the expiry of one year, the tenant continued to be in possession not by virtue of rent note but by virtue of the provisions of the Act. Any stipulation respecting the increase in the rate of rent on the happening of certain condition in future, entered in this rent note would not survive after the expiry of the lease period. Again, Sub-section (1) of Sec. 7 of the Act provides that no landlord shall in consideration of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy of any building or rented land require the payment of any fine, premium or any other like sum in addition to the rent. The additional amount of Rs. 40 was obviously claimed in consideration of the tenant being disallowed to continue in possession of the demised premises. This stipulation would, therefore, he hit by the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Sec. 7 of the Act and would not be enforceable.;