The judgment established that the authorities under the Rent Act did not have jurisdiction to entertain an eviction petition during the subsisting lease without a forfeiture clause.

Vinod K. Sharma, J. - The State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary Forests, Ministry of Forests has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jagadhri as affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala ordering eviction of the petitioner on an application moved under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act of 1949.

2. Late Smt. Ram Piari filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban rent Restriction Act of 1949 for ejectment of the petitioner from land measuring 300 ft. x 140 ft. equal to 3 Bighas-6 Biswas on the plea that Sham Singh and Narain Singh were owners of 30 Bighas 13 Biswas land including the disputed land. The land was leased out to the Forest Department of Erstwhile Jubbal State which subsequently merged with the respondent State and thus the said land came under the tenancy of the petitioner State through Ministry of Forests.

3. Sham Singh and Narain Singh sold 20 Bighas 7 Biswas of land out of the said land toil Puran Singh Multari etc. and agreed to sell the remaining 10 Bighas 6 Biswas land to the Smt. Ram Piari through her husband on 23.3.1972.

4. It was claimed that Sham Singh and Narain Singh actually sold the disputed land measuring 3 Bighas 6 Biswas out of the said land to late Smt. Ram Piari vide sale deed dated 28.3.1972, so she claimed to be landlord and the petitioner State as tenant under her with respect to the land purchased by her.

5. The landlord claimed that the petitioner State failed to pay the rent since 28.3.1972. It was also the claim by the landlord that the disputed land has been sublet by the State of Himachal Pradesh to H.P. State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to "Corporation") without the consent and permission of the landlord.

6. It was also claimed that the respondent State has changed the use of land by leasing out the same to the Corporation, referred to above, and the land was now being used for transport business i.e. parking of buses and booking of passengers etc. It was also claimed that the suit land is rented land within the meaning of the Rent Act. She also raised a plea of personal bonafide requirement claiming that the land was required for her business of timber which she and her husband intended to start there. The landlord further claimed that the tenancy stood terminated by a legal notice. However, it was asserted that inspite of notice the petitioner State has failed to vacate the disputed and thus, eviction was sought under the provisions of Rent Act.

7. The petitioner-State in the written statement controverted the allegations made in the petition on the plea that late Sh. Moti Ram original owner had leased out 30 Bighas 13 Biaswas land to the Forest Department of Jubbal State and the lease was perpetual one.

8. It was claimed that the petitioner-State was permanent lessee and, therefore, cannot ordered to be ejected. The petitioner-State also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Plea that the tenancy could not be unilaterally split was also raised. The plea that the petitioner-State was in arrears of rent was also denied. However, the petitioner-State tendered Rs. 33-94 paise as rent for the aforesaid entire land for one year long with interest as well as costs assessed by the Court.

9. The plea of subletting was also denied. It was claimed that there was no restriction on the petitioner-State regarding the purpose for which the tenancy land could be used and, thus, the plea of change of user was also denied. The plea of bonafide personal necessary was also denied. It was claimed that the dispute land was not rented land within the meaning of Rent Act and, thus, it was claimed that the Court did not have any jurisdiction to try the case. The plea was raised that present petition under the Rent Act was not maintainable in view of the permanent lease in favour of the petitioner- State. A plea was also