The court interpreted Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b), 13(1)(c), and 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act to determine the grounds for eviction of a tenant.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. This is a landlords revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 25.11.1932 passed by the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, who affirmed the order dated 1.10.1981 passed by Rent Controller, Batala, who dismissed the ejectment petition of Nirmala Wati under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act)

2. The brief facts of the case are that landlady Nirmala Wati filed eviction application before the Rent Controller for the eviction of respondent-tenant on the allegations that she leased out two adjoining shops to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-vide rent note dated 11.3.1967. The tenant committed default in the payment of the rent for a period of seven years before the filing of the application. It was further alleged by the landlady that during two to three years before the institution of the petition, the respondent ceased to occupy the demised shops and the shops had not been used in a good-husband-like manner. The tenant had materially damaged the floors and walls of the shops. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent. He admitted that he was a tenant under the landlady. Originally, he occupied two shops but he vacated one shop on 1.11.1978 and handed over the possession to the husband of the landlady and thus since 1.11.1978 he was in possession of one shop which adjoins Ambika Foundry and Allied Industries on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. The claim of the landlady that rent was in arrears for seven years was also contested. According to the respondent, he had cleared all the arrears of rent upto 1.11.1978 with regard to bath the shops and thereafter qua the shop which remained under his tenancy he had paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month till June, 1979. On the first date of hearing? he tendered the rent only qua one shop and that too from June, 1979. According to th6 respondent, the shop under his occupation is being used regularly for business purpose both by him and his son Prem Kumar. The respondent also denied that he had impaired the value and utility of the shop. According to the, respondent, the floor of the shop, which is in his possession, is quite in order and the condition of the walls is also good.

3. From the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues at the first instance :-

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

2. Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPA

3. Relief.

4. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and the learned Rent Controller held that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties vis-a-vis only one shop and the possession of other shop was handed over to the landlady through her husband. Issue No. 2 decided against the landlady and the petition was dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the landlady filed appeal before the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, who came to the conclusion that the issues which were framed by the Rent Controller had not been happily worded and thus re-casted the issues as follows:-

1. Whether respondent has vacated one of the demised shops on 1.11.78 at the instance of the applicants husband. If so to what effect? OPR

2. Whether the tender is valid? OPR

3. Whether the respondent ceased to occupy the demised shops continuously for a period of more than four months immediately before the filing of the eviction application without reasonable cause? OPA

4. Whether respondent has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the demised shops? OPA

5. Relief.

6. After re-casting the issues, the file was sent to the Rent Controller with the direction to make further inquiry and afford opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and then to return findings on the issues which were framed by the Appellate Authority. The pa