JUDGMENT
Arvind Kumar, J.
1. This order shall dispose of the above-referred revision petitions, since both of them have been preferred against a common judgment passed by the appellate authority below.
2. It emerges out from record that respondent-landlord Baba Kashmir Gir filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for brevity, the Act) against the petitioners Yashpal and Bhagwan Dass. It was his case that the shop in dispute was rented out to respondent Bhagwan Dass by virtue of rent note dated 28.2.1963 at the annual rent of Rs. 900/-, which was to increase @ Rs. 6,000/- per annum after 3 years. According to the landlord said Bhagwan Dass, sub-let the shop to his own brother i.e. petitioner Yashpal and thereby contravened the stipulation as contained in the said rent note of not passing the tenancy right in favour of third party, without the written consent. Besides, the grounds of personal necessity and that the shop being unfit for human habitation were also taken.
3. On the other hand, the case of the petitioners was that the shop in dispute was rented out to them jointly, since they both carried out work in the shop together. The shop in dispute was under occupation of petitioner Yashpal since 1964, after leaving of the shop by Bhagwan Das and long silence on the part of the landlord amounts to consent or acquiescence and that apart the petition is barred by limitation and is a counterblast to the civil suit earlier filed by Yashpal. It was their further case that the landlord while raising construction on the western side of the shop in dispute, intentionally damaged the wall of the shop in dispute.
4. It is apposite to mention here that the petitioner Yashpal alone filed an application under Section 12 of the Act and thereby sought the permission to get the shop in dispute repaired, alleging therein that the landlord has intentionally damaged a wall of the shop, as a result of which cracks have developed on the wall situate on the western side of the shop.
5. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 14.9.2005 dismissed the application of Yashpal filed under Section 12 of the Act ibid for getting the building repaired while the application under Section 13 of the Act ibid, preferred by the landlord for eviction of Yashpal and Bhagwan Dass was allowed vide separate order passed on the even date and both of them were directed to vacate the demised shop within a period of two months.
6. The findings returned by the Rent Controller on the application under Section 12 of the Act, filed by Yashpal as well as while ordering for eviction of the both the petitioners on the application under Section 13 of the Act, were affirmed by the first appellate court below, in appeal, preferred by the petitioners by passing a common judgment dated 21.12.2006. Hence the instant civil revisions.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners at length and have also gone through the paper books carefully.
8. It is an admitted fact that shop in dispute is ownership of respondent Baba Kashmir Gir. It emerges out from record that the tenancy in respect of the shop in dispute was created in favour of Bhagwan Dass alone in the year 1963 by dint of rent note dated 28.2.1963 and in the said rent note there was a stipulation that Bhagwan Dass shall not sub-let the shop in dispute to anybody, without the written consent of the landlord. It goes undisputed on record that petitioner No. 2 Bhagwan Dass, to whom the shop in dispute was rented out, left the premises in the year 1964 and has shifted to some other place. It also emerges from the record that thereafter the shop in dispute was occupied by Yashpal alone. Although it has been pleaded that the shop in dispute was rented out to Bhagwan Dass and Yashpal jointly, but neither any evidence to substantiate the said plea was led nor it was not shown by Yashpal as to in what capacity he is occupying the shop in dispute, since Bhagwan Dass in whose favour originally the tenancy was created, was not examined by Yashpal. It has also been held that merely because Yashpal was working with Bhagwan Dass, does not bring about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the former and Baba Kashmir Gir. Accordingly, the status of Yashpal on the shop in dispute was held to be that of a sub-lettee.
9. The courts below while taking into account the fact that Yashpal is a sub-tenant over the shop in dispute, in contravention of the terms of rent deed dated 28.2.1963, as there was no written consent on the landlord in this regard, held that although there is long silence on the part of the landlord, but it cannot be termed as consent and as per rules as well as recitals appearing in rent deed dated 28.2.963, written consent of landlord for sub-letting the property is necessarily required, which other wise has not been proved by Yaspal. Accordingly, it was held that both the respondents (petitioners herein) are liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute, as respondent No. 1 contravened the terms of rent deed dated 28.2.1963.
10. That apart, in the absence of any evidence, worth of any credence, to show that the rent had been paid upto 31.3.2001, as the balance sheets produced by the petitioner Yashpal for the year ending 31.3.2001, to show the payment of rent was found to be self-serving document, it has been held that the tender made by Yashpal, who is otherwise sub-tenant, is invalid and short. Besides this the Courts below while ordering for ejectment of the petitioners from demised shop on the ground of its unfitness also, took into account the factum of filing of the petition under Section 12 of the Act by the petitioner Yashpal wherein he himself mentioned about the dilapidated condition of the shop in question coupled with the statement of own witness i.e. RW Banarsi Dass Jindal to the effect that cracks have been developed on the wall of the shop in dispute, which is of old age and the construction raised on western side is raised by the landlord on its own land, without touching the wall of the shop in dispute. Thus, it has been concurrently held that being of old construction, the shop in dispute is not fit for human habitation.
11. So far as the orders passed by the Courts below on the application under Section 12 of the Act, filed by the petitioner Yashpal is concerned, it has been rightly held that since the petitioner Yashpal has been proved to be a sub-tenant in the premises in question, without the written consent of the landlord, he cannot seek any indulgence of the Court in order to execute any repairs in the premises in question.
Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view or that the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below, are either perverse or based on no evidence. Moreover, it is relevant to mention there that, as conceded by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the possession of the demised shop has already been taken from the petitioners by the landlord on 22.8.2007.
Therefore, in view of what has been said hereinabove, the instant petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed in limine.