UJAGAR SINGH,J - (1.) THE petitioners filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for ejectment of the respondents from shop-cum-flat No. 38, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh on various grounds and after trial this petition was dismissed on 24.5.1983 by the Rent Controller. Appeal against it filed by the petitioners was heard by the Appellate Authority. Ultimately this appeal also failed vide order dated 6.11.1984, passed by the Appellate Authority. Both the orders have been challenged in this revision. During pendency of this revision Civil Misc. No. 767-C-II of 1989 was filed under Section 15(5) of the Act read with Order 41 rule 27 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to lead additional evidence by way of (i) order of appellate authority dated 6.2.1986 in appeal by Satya Parkash and Empire Building against Smt. Gomti Devi, S/Shri. Dharam Singh and Karam Singh accepting the appeal of the appellants therein and directing ejectment of the said respondents, and (ii) an order dated 5.8.87 passed by D.V. Sehgal, J. (as he then was) in Civil Revision No. 724 of 1986 Smt. Gomti Devi and Shri Dharam Singh against Satya Parkash and Empire Buildings Store on one side and Shri Karam Singh proforma respondent on the other and the said civil revision was dismissed. This Civil Miscellaneous was opposed and the matter was directed to be heard along with main Civil Revision. Both, the Civil Revision and Civil Miscellaneous are being decided by this order.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present revision are that Master H.S. Sandhu, Miss Gurbrinder Sandhu, minor son and daughter of Shri M.S. Sandhu through their father as their next friend and natural guardian and Mrs. Amarjit Kaur Sadhu claimed to be the owners-landlords of the said premises and had let out the same on monthly rent by way of an oral agreement to respondent No. 1 who was required to use the tenancy premises according to the rules and regulations governing the building. Shop portion thereof was to be used for business purpose whereas the flat portion was to be used for residential purpose. Sub-letting and under-let were prohibited and tenant-respondent No. 1 was not to make any additions or alterations without the written permission of the petitioners. The rent was to be paid monthly in advance on or before 5th day of the month. The ejectment was sought on the grounds (i) respondent No. 1 had sub-let first floor of the demised premises to Smt. Gomti Devi and Dharam Singh at a monthly rent of Rs. 175/- some time in the year 1974 without the consent of the petitioners and this sub-tenancy was still continuing; (ii) shop portion of the demised premises was sub-let by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 4 under whose name and style the business was being carried on. As a matter of fact the shop portion was rented out to respondent No. 1 for carrying on his business there and the flat portion was let out to him for his residence. This sub-letting by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 4 was also without consent of the petitioners; (iii) respondent No. 1 had made additions, alterations i.e. a kitchen, latrine and bath had been constructed on the Barsati portion against the rules and regulations governing the building and against the sanctioned plan thereby materially impairing the value and the utility of the building. The constructions are of permanent nature and had been done without the permission of the petitioners in the year 1979. Written-statement by respondents Nos. 1 and 4 was filed relying merely upon the denial of the averments in the petition with some preliminary objections namely that the petitioners alone could not maintain the petition on the ground (a) Kashmira Singh, Jaswant Singh and Sukhwant Singh were joint owners and landlord along with the petitioners; (b) the petitioners are estopped from instituting this petition by their by acts and conduct, (c) the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; Karam Singh son of Gurdial Singh, Gomti Devi respondent No. 2 and Dharam Singh respondent No. 3 occupying the first floor of the premises in question were also said to be necessary parties; and (d) the petition had been filed in collusion between the petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was, therefore, liable to be thrown out. On merits, the letting out of the premises in dispute, in the year 1971, by the petitioners, at a monthly of rent of Rs. 875/- has been admitted. The other alleged terms and conditions are not admitted. Sub-letting by respondent No. 1 to Shri Karam Singh son of Gurdial Singh, Smt. Gomti Devi and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 with effect from 1.6.1972 has been admitted but it is stated that it was at the instance and with the consent of the landlords. Shri Karam Singh and his brother Dharam Singh were said to running furniture business in booth No. 38/6 in this very building jointly owned by the landlords. Said Karam Singh etc. were said to be in need of residential accommodation in the vicinity and the landlords themselves approached the answering respondents to give them the first floor of the premises on rent till they could arrange an alternative accommodation and charge any rent from them. Sub-letting was said to have occurred before coming into force of the Act in the urban area of Chandigarh. The tenant-respondent averred that no additions or alterations have been made and as a fact kitchen, latrine and bath were constructed by the landlord themselves making the answering respondent to raise the rent from Rs. 875/- per month to Rs. 1,000/- in consideration thereof. The question of impairing the value or utility of the building much less due to any act on the part of the tenants or sub-tenants did not arise. An additional plea was also taken. The same was that the rent was increased to Rs. 1,000/- per month in the year 1975, and the petitioner were now demanding enhancement of rent to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and an instance has been given that the petitioners got S.C.F. No. 38/4 vacated from Khanna Brothers and again let out the same to Shri Hanuman at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month instead of Rs. 200/- per month which they were getting from the earlier tenant. As another instance, the petitioners are said to have got second floor portion vacated and let out the same at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month instead of Rs. 200/- per month earlier. With these additional pleas the petition was said to have been filed mala fide in order to put pressure on the respondents. Gomti Devi and Dharam Singh also filed their written reply admitting themselves to be tenants on the first floor of the premises in dispute at the rate of Rs. 175/- per month and this floor of the premises was taken on rent from Satya Parkash in January, 1974 and was said to be said in their occupation. The other averments of the petitioners have been denied.
(3.) AFTER the said written-statements were filed the petitioners filed replication reiterating their averments in the ejectment petition and denying the pleas raised in the written-statement. Further averment was added to the effect that the respondent No. 1 increased the rent of his own volition to cover his fault of making additions and alterations as also of sub-letting for which the petitioners only came to know in or about the month of March 1981.;