JUDGMENT

Ms. Amarjot Bhatti, J.

The petitioners - Chander Kanta, Dinesh Kumar, Harish Kumar and Jatinder Kumar - all legal heirs of late Ashwani Kumar have filed civil revision against impugned judgment dated 09.12.2006 passed by Appellate Authority, Moga vide which the appeal preferred by Mool Chand Rajinder Kumar through Sh. Vijay Kumar, Sole Proprietor and in his personal capacity was accepted and the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller, Moga vide order dated 11.03.2006 was set aside.

2. As per the facts of the case, the present petitioners are the legal heirs of Ashwani Kumar who had initially filed the ejectment petition against the respondents. During the pendency of that ejectment petition, Ashwani Kumar had expired and his legal heirs i.e. the present petitioners were impleaded as party to this case. The facts of the case are that Ashwani Kumar filed petition under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the ejectment of respondents from the premises being ground floor of the property bearing Municipal No. B-VIII-515, situated at Old Grain market with the boundaries as detailed in the petition. It is claimed that petitioner Ashwani Kumar is the landlord and owner of the property in question. The ground floor of the building was rented out to M/s Mool Chand Rajinder Kumar i.e. respondent No. 1 at annual rent of Rs. 4800/- in the year 1984. The respondents are liable to be ejected from the premises on the ground that respondent No. 1 has not paid the due house tax of Rs. 5,086/- levied by M.C. Moga despite repeated demand. The respondent No. 1 without the consent of the petitioner has sublet the premises to respondent No. 2 who is in possession of the same as a sub tenant. The respondents have committed such act that they have raised construction in front of the shop in the shape to thara which has impaired the value and utility of the premises without the consent of the landlord. The respondents have made material alteration in the building. They have removed the separating walls in the rooms and erected a pillar and has converted three rooms into a hall. They have closed the door towards the southern side permanently. Lastly, it was alleged that petitioner requires the premises for his own use and occupation as he is not occupying any other building within the municipal limits of Moga nor he has vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The petitioner is to start his own business in the premises in question alongwith his two sons who are at present unemployed. Therefore, the premises are required for their own use and occupation. On the aforesaid grounds, it was prayed that the respondents may be ejected from the premises as detailed in the petition and they may be directed to handover the vacant possession in favour of the petitioner.

3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents who contested the present petition and filed their joint written statement taking the preliminary objection alleging that an agreement was executed between Ashwani Kumar and M/s Mool Chand Rajinder Kumar on 23.08.1986, according to which the rate of rent was fixed @ Rs. 400/- per month alongwith other terms and conditions regarding tenancy. The case has been filed by Ashwani Kumar s/o Mangat Rai and it is wrongly claimed that Ashwani Kumar is son of Mangat Ram @ Mangat Rai. It is further mentioned that Saroj Rani is not a partner of M/s Mool Chand Rajinder Kumar any more. Rather, it is Vijay Kumar - respondent No. 2 who is the sole proprietor. The address of Vijay Kumar - respondent No. 2 has been wrongly mentioned at Village Lohra Partapura, Lambra, District Jalandhar, whereas, he is carrying on his business in the property in dispute. One notice was served through Sh. Varinder Kaship, Advocate on 08.10.1999 and reply to this notice was duly given. No notice is served upon them under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The