A sub-tenant cannot be ordered to be ejected for non-payment of arrears of rent when he claims himself to be a direct tenant under the landlord, and the landlord has not sought his ejectment on that ground.

Harphul Singh Brar, J.

1. This revision petition has been placed before us for final decision on merits.

2. A petition Under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) was filed by the landlords Mohinder Singh and Kulwant Kaur for ejectment of Santa Singh tenant and Lt. Col. P.C. Verman, Sub-Tenant from 3/8th portion of the first floor of S.C.O. No. 17, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh. It is alleged in the petition that the said premises was let out by the landlords to Santa Singh on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. Originally the tenancy was for 11 months. Santa Singh had sublet the said portion to Lt. Col. P.C. Verman after constructing the said portion, which was against the terms and conditions of the tenancy. Santa Singh had impaired the value and utility of the premises materially by constructing the rooms on the said premises. Santa Singh was in arrears of rent for the period from April 1, 1974 to May 31, 1976 i.e. for 26 months amounting to Rs. 7800/-. A notice terminating the tenancy was served. The ejectment was claimed on the following grounds:

Firstly, that the tenant Santa Singh had sublet the portion of the building in dispute to P.C. Verman without the consent of the landlords against the terms and conditions of the lease;

Secondly, by constructing rooms Santa Singh had impaired materially the value and utility of the said premises; and

Thirdly, Santa Singh, tenant had not paid rent of Rs. 7800/- for 26 months i.e. from April 1, 1974 to May 31, 1976.

3. Santa Singh, tenant, contested the petition. He admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and claimed himself to be a statutory tenant of the landlord. He further admitted that he had sublet the premises to P.C. Verman but stated at the same time that it was sublet to P.C. Verman with the consent of the landlords and, thus, this ground was not available to the landlords to eject him. He then pleaded in this written statement that he had paid the rent to the landlords and was not in arrears of the same. He denied the ground that he had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises.

4. P.C. Verman, sub-tenant, filed a separate written statement. He pleaded there in that the landlords had filed an application for ejectment in collusion with Santa Singh, tenant, who happened to be their domestic servant. In fact, the landlord let out the premises in question to him through Santa Singh but when it was objected to, it was represented to him that because of some tax obligation, it was so done. In spite of that he obtained the signatures and permission of the owners authorising Santa Singh in the matter of letting the premises to him by Santa Singh. He then pleaded that he had been regularly paying the rent to Santa Singh, tenant, who refused to accept the rent two years ago. He reiterated in his written statement that Santa Singh practically admitted the claim of the landlords and intentionally did not make any tender of the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. He then pleaded that the rental value of the first floor was stated to be Rs. 2,000/- p.m. but it was let out for Rs. 200/- only and this was done in order to circumvent the law and that the petition was liable to be dismissed on that ground. The real intention of the landlord was to increase the rent. He pleaded that at the time of letting out the premises to him it was represented that Kulwant Kaur was the owner of the building and 3/8th share of the first floor of the building in dispute was let out to Santa Singh. He further pleaded that due rent had already been paid to Santa Singh as agreed between the parties. The answering respondent never refused to pay the rent and was prepared to pay even now to Santa Singh under the Contract.

5. Replication to the written statements was filed by the landlords controverting the allegations made therein.

6. Following issues were framed by the Rent Controller :

"1. Whether the respondent No. 1 has s