The existence of two separate and distinct tenancies precludes the landlord from seeking ejectment of the entire premises based on sub-letting and change of user of one room.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This is tenants revision directed against the judgments of the rent Controller and the appellate Authority whereby he has been ordered to be ejected from the premises in dispute.

2. Ejectment of the petitioner was sought from three bed-rooms, drawing-cum-dining, two verandahs, kitchen, latrine, bath-room and one room over the garage on the first floor of House No. 2132, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh. It was the case of the landlord, Brij Lal (now deceased) and being represented by legal representatives (respondents herein) that at the first instance, he had let out three bed-rooms, drawing cum dining, two verandahs, kitchen, latrine and bath-room on the first floor of House No. 2132, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh, at a rent of Rs. 575/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. He alleged that since he had to go to U.S.A., he handed over keys of the house to one Des Raj to look after the house in question. In his absence, tenant took possession of one room over the garage and one room On the ground floor and when landlord come to Chandigarh, he objected to it and requested the tenant to vacate these two rooms and the landlord was compelled under threat, coercion and pressure to sign a receipt for a rent of Rs. 825/- and then only the tenant vacated one room on the ground floor and in this way he became tenant at a rent of Rs. 825/- in respect of three bed-rooms, drawing cum dining, two verandahs, latrine, bathroom on the first floor and one room over the garage, landlord sought ejectment of the tenant from these premises on the ground that after the commencement of the Act, tenant has sub-let two rooms in the main house to his son, S.K. Jain and a room over the garage to M/s M.V. Sales. Ejectment was also sought on the ground that the room over the garage was let out for residential purpose, but the same is being used for non-residential purpose. Tenant, Nem Chand Jain and his son, S.K. Jain and M/s M.V. sales filed a joint written statement. In the written statement, they averred that tenancy in regard to the premises is not a composite one, but consists of two separate and distinct tenancies; one in respect of a set of accommodation comprising three bed-rooms, drawing-cum-dining, two verandahs, kitchen, latrine and bath-room and the other in respect of a room over the garage. This tenancy, according to the tenant, started on 1.1.1980 at a rent of Rs. 575/- per month which subsequently was enhanced to Rs. 625/- per month w.e.f. 1.2.1983. The other tenancy is in respect of a set of accommodation comprising one room over the garage with attached bath-room and latrine which was created w.e.f. 15.3.1982 at a rent of Rs. 200/- per month. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller on 19.11.1983 :

1. Whether the respondent has made a valid tender on the first date of hearing? OPR.

2. Whether the respondent No. 1 has sublet the disputed premises to respondent No. 2 and 3 without any written consent of the petitioner? OPP.

3. Whether the respondent has changed the user of the premises for a purpose other than that for which it was let out ? OPP.

4. Relief.

and following additional issues on 16.2.1984 :

1. Whether there are different causes of action for distinct tenancies ? OPR.

2. Whether this petition is not maintainable ? OPR.

3. Relief.

On the basis of evidence brought on record, the Rent Controller ordered ejectment of the tenant on both counts, i.e. sub-letting and change of user of one room over the garage from residential to non-residential. Appellate Authority has affirmed the judgment of the Rent Controller in an appeal preferred by the petitioners herein. Hence, the present revision petition by the petitioners.

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioners that the judgments of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are not sustainable in law inasmuch as it has been found by the Rent Controller and also by the Appellate Auth