Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 807 (PNJ)

Om Parkash v. Firm Daya Ram Tek Chand

2000-07-27

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2000
Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. This petition has been on the regular board of this Court since 18.7.2000. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner despite the fact that the case has been called out repeated on different dates. This Court has no choice but to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued at length. 3. This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar, dated 21.1.1983. Shri Om Parkash had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , for eviction of the respondent-tenants from 2-1/2 storeyed building referred to in the petition. The grounds of eviction taken were that the respondents had failed to pay the arrears of rent from 1.11.1976 to the date of institution of the petition. They have ceased to carry out business in the premises and sub-let the same to one Kishan Dayal and others and that they had changed the user of the premises in question. 4. After framing the issues and granting opportunity to the parties to lead evidence the Rent Controller vide his order dated 20.4.1979 dismissed the petition and answered the issues against the petitioner. As far as non- payment of rent is concerned, the tenants had paid the rent on the first date of hearing along with interest as directed by the Court. Resultantly, this ground became infructuous. On other issues it was held that the sub-tenant was not a necessary party. However, other grounds were found having no merit, resulting in dismissal of the petition. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the findings arrived at by the learned Rent Controller. In fact during the pendency of the petition, a local Commissioner was appointed. The report of the local Commissioner dated 3.3.1979 was filed on the record of the Court and it was proved that all the members were carrying on the business in the demised premises and were in possession of the property in question. As far as ground of sub-tenancy was concerned, it was found as a matter of fact that Kishan Dayal was a watchman appointed by the tenants and he had nothing to do with the premises in question. 5. As far as ground of sub-tenancy was concerned, it was found as a matter of fact that Kishan Dayal was a watchman appointed by the tenants and he had nothing to do with the premises in question. 5. The only factor which was found to be against the respondents was Ex.RW 5/A which was a ration card of said Kishan Dayal who stated that he had obtained the said ration card in the employment of the respondents for the purposes of getting sugar, which was controlled item and was not easily available. Relying upon various judgments of this Court, the learned appellate Court rejected the appeal. The findings of fact which had been concurrently arrived at by the learned Courts below are (based) upon proper appreciation of evidence and in consonance with the settled principles of law. I see no reason to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision petition is dismissed.