Mohan Lal and others vs S. Amolak Singh and others

M.R. Sharma, J.—This petition is directed against the appellate judgment dated December 6, 1973, rendered by the learned Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act). The land in dispute was given on lease by respondent No. 1 to Hari Singh respondent No. 2 on November 11, 1948, for a period of 20 years on payment of Rs. 1280/- as the yearly rent. Respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 7 who had acquired some rights in the land in dispute under a gift filed a suit for ejectment of Hari Singh respondent No. 2 and the petitioners on the ground of sub-letting without the consent of the landlord and for non-payment of rent. The learned Tribunals below have on the interpretation of the terms of the rent deed came to the conclusion that sub-letting had been done with the express consent of the landlord. The application for ejectment was allowed on the ground that the rent of the premises had not been paid in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

In this petition, Mr. Sarin has not challenged the findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunals below. He has submitted that since agricultural land was leased out to Hari Singh respondent No. 2, the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction and respondents Nos. 1 and 7 could they were so advised, approach the Revenue authorities for seeking the ejectment of respondent No. 2 and the petitioners. Section 2(f) of the Act reads as under:

''Rented land'' means any land let separately for the purpose of being used principally for business or trade.

A plain reading of this provision shows that even if a vacant land is let out for being principally used for business or trade, it would fall within the definition of the term "rented land" and the Rent Controller would have jurisdiction to entertain a petition in respect of such a land. A persual of lease deed Exhibit A. I shows that the lessee had been given the right to construct a factory on these premises. He had also been allowed to construct buildings and sub-let them. It is not disputed that a factory had been constructed on the premises in dispute. It is also fact that in some of the buildings respondent No. 2 had inducted some tenants. Whether a factory had come up on the land in dispute or some buildings had come up which were being let out to tenants and sub-tenants the object of such letting being to derive profits from the investment made, the land loses its character as agricultural land and falls within the definition of the term "rented land" as given in section 2 (f) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority were competent to pass an order of ejectment against the petitioners. Mr. Sarin relied upon Pyara Singh v. Mahant Gurmukh Das (1964) 66 P.L.R. 193, in which Dua. J. as the learned Judge then was has held that where the tenancy was with regard to the vacant site but the tenant had under an agreement with the landlord constructed a building thereon, the Rent Controller could pass an eviction order in regard only to that site. This is precisely what has been done in this case. The, authorities below had directed the original tenant, namely, Hari Singh respondent No. 2, to remove the Malba within a stipulated period. The order under revision does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. In the circumstances, I order that this petition be dismissed with costs.

Mr. Sarin submits that the petitioners be given sometime to vacate the buildings. The learned Rent Controller has already given them three month''s time to do so. In this situation, I am not inclined to accede to the prayer made by Mr. Sarin.