The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of legal provisions under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 11 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 in determining the validity of tender, change of user, and subletting.

K.C.Gupta, J.

1. This revision petition is directed by the landlords against the order dated 10.9.1985 passed by the Appellate Authority Ludhiana, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 whereby he accepted the appeal of respondent No.1 Joginder Singh with costs and set aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 7.3.1983 and dismissed the petition for ejectment with costs.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Harbans Singh father of the petitioners has filed a rent petition on 17.3.1981 against the respondent for their ejectment from a part of House No. B-IV-1477, Chauri Sarak, Ludhiana, as shown in the site plan attached, on the allegations; that the premises in dispute was transferred to him with effect from 1.10,1985 and at that time respondent No. 1 was an allottee in a part of the house i.e. demised premises as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 5/-. After the death of Dewan Chand, his son Joginder Singh respondent No.1 became tenant on the same terms and conditions. However, Joginder Singh respondent No.1 had sub let the demised premises to his son Amarjit Singh who is carrying on the business in the name and style of Supreme Dry Cleaner. It was next averred that they had changed the user of the property because instead of residence, they had started using it for commercial purposes. It was also averred that the respondents had made material alterations in the demised premises which has resulted in impairing the value and utility of the premises in dispute. It was further averred that the respondent had not paid the arrears of rent since 1.10.1955.

3. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, Harbans Singh died and in his place his legal representatives i.e. the petitioners were substituted.

4. The respondents contested the petition and stated by way of preliminary objection; that the premises in dispute was an evacuee property and Joginder Singh respondent No.1 was a tenant of the rehabilitation department but had paid the rent upto 31.1.1980. They next stated that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. They denied that the property in dispute was transferred to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.10.1955. Rather the matter of transfer was still under dispute. However, they admitted that Dewan Chand was an allottee in a portion of the house in dispute at a monthly rent of Rs.5/-. They next stated that Dewan Chand was running a Karyana shop in the property in dispute and as such, it was being used as a shop from the very beginning. They further stated that respondent No.1 was doing the dry cleaning business in the demised premises and denied that respondent No.1 had sub let the premises to his son Amarjit Singh respondent No.2 but asserted that they constituted a Joint Hindu Family and were running two dry cleaning shops one in the demised premises and the other in the Jawahar Market jointly. They also denied that they had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute. They further stated that they had tendered rent in the court for payment to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.2.1980 to 30.4.1981 at the enhanced rate of Rs.12/- per month.

5. Accordingly the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPP

2. Whether the tender is valid? OPP

3. Whether respondents are liable to be ejected on the ground mentioned in para no.3 of the petition? OPA

4. Relief.

6. The parties adduced their evidence. After hearing counsel for the parties, the Rent Controller, vide his order dated 7.3.1983 accepted the petition and ordered the ejectment of the respondents from the demised premises and directed them to hand over vacant possession within two months by holding under issue No.1 that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between them. Under issue No.2 it was held that a valid tender had been made. Under issue No.3 it was held that respondents were liable to be ejected from the demised premises as