UJAGAR SINGH,J - (1.) THE landlord-revision petitioner has challenged the order dt. 19.2.1982 passed by the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, accepting the appeal of the tenant-respondent and by setting aside the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller, the ejectment application filed by the landlord-applicant has been dismissed.
(2.) THE relevant averments in the ejectment application are that the respondent-tenant had neither tendered nor paid rent from 1.1.1972 and had ceased to occupy the premises in question for a continuous period of four months without reasonable excuse. Another averment is that the premises being non-residential and left out for a trade purpose have been converted into residential purpose and the respondent-firm was not carrying on business therein for the last two years. The premises in question bear Khana Shumari No. 2952/2, at present 2280/II-31, situated in Puran Market, Amritsar with the boundaries given in the application. The eviction application was filed on 1.5.1972 and was decided ex parte on 21.6.1972 when the Rent Controller passed the ejectment order. Shankar Lal, one of the partners of M/s. Sita Ram Chuni Lal, the tenant-respondent firm filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex-parte order on the ground that he came to know about the order on 19.8.1972 at 5 p.m. This application was filed on 21.8.1972, along with his affidavit of that date. This application was opposed. Ultimately, the ex-parte order was set aside vide order dated 8.11.1977 passed by the learned Rent Controller. The respondent submitted his written reply (as a matter of fact, the written reply is filed by Shankar Lal alone and the same does not show that it was filed on behalf of the firm) with the following averments :- (i) Shankar Lal and Chuni Lal were the partners of the respondent No. 1 ; (ii) Rent note was executed by the firm through Shankar Lal; (iii) No breaches were committed by the respondent firm and there was no valid notice of termination of tenancy ever received by Shankar Lal ; (iv) Rent had already been tendered, along with interest and costs and the applicant gave up this ground of non-payment of rent. (v) The respondent-firm never ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause and in fact, the averment was vague and did not specify from which period the said four months started and ended. Shankar Lal, one of the partners of the said firm was still in occupation of the demised premises and it was carrying on business therein ; and (vi) The tenancy premises had not been turned into residential premises and the business was going on therein. There was no residence in the premises. It was denied that no business was being carried on for over two years.
(3.) REPLICATION was filed by the landlord-applicant controverting the allegations in the written reply and reiterating those in the application.;