- (1.) The petitioner, who is a landlord, filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called as the Act), for eviction of the respondents from the premises in dispute, on the ground of sub-letting. This petition was resisted by the tenant and sub-tenant on the ground that there was no sub-letting after the commencement of the Act and that if there was any sub-letting, it was earlier to the commencement of the Act. The parties contested on the following issues :- 1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 2. Whether the plea of relationship of landlord and tenant is barred by res-judicata 3. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected on the ground alleged in the application O.P.A. 4. Whether the tender of the arrears of rent is invalid O.P.A. 5. Whether a valid notice was served on the respondents before their filing of this application O.P.A. 6. Relief. The learned Rent Controller decided all the issues in favour of the petitioner and ordered the eviction of the respondents from the demised premises. Dissatisfied by the order of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant and sub-tenant successfully appealed before the appellate authority. Hence, this revision petition by the landlord.
(2.) The only point canvassed before me by Shri G.C. Mital, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the appellate authority has gone wrong in holding that the ground of sub-letting was not available to the landlord as the sub-letting commenced before the coming into force of the Act although it continued afterwards also. Mr. Majithia, Counsel for the tenant says that the clear wording of the provisions shows that if the premises in dispute were sub-let after the commencement of this Act, then only this ground could be available, otherwise, the tenant could not be ejected on this ground. There is no dispute regarding the facts. Admittedly, the demised premises were sub-let before the coming into force of the Act and the sub-letting continued even after the commencement of the Act.
(3.) I have given my careful consideration to the question. In my view, the ground which was not available when the Act came into force, otherwise the landlord would be left with no remedy at all. If a tenant was prohibited from doing certain acts after the commencement of the Act, it does not mean that when the Act was not in force and he had done acts, he would continue to do them even after the enforcement of the Act. The view I am taking is supported by a Single Bench authority of this Court in Des Raj v. P.N. Kaul, 1978 1 RCR(Rent) 330 . There the ground was change of user. In that case change of user was before the commencement and that continued after the coming into force of the Act also and in that situation, it was held that the landlord is entitled to succeed on this ground as the change of the user continued even after the commencement of the Act. I am in respectful agreement with the observations of the learned Single Judge in this case.;