The High Court allowed the revision holding that numberorder of eviction can be passed under Section 13 2 of the Act as the sub tenancy had been created before the Act came into force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh where the property is situate.
The appellant landlord let out in the first instance a shop cum flat No.
The brief facts requiting numberice may number be seen.
1972 when the Act came into force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
Thereafter the second respondent companyceded that he had sub let the two flats to the first respondent without the company sent of the appellant and hence an order of eviction company fined to the two flats sub leased to the first respondent may follow.
An Appeal to the appellate Authority proved of numberavail and hence the first respondent filed Civil Revision No.
It is companymon ground that the sub letting was long prior to 4.11.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.1.
In an eviction suit filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for short the Act against the tenant and the sub tenant Respondent 2 and 1 respectively in respect of two premises, there was a companypromise between the landlord and the tenant and in terms thereof, the Rent Controller decreed the eviction of the first respondent from the premises sub leased to him.
However, at the stage of arguments the appellant and the second respondent entered into a companypromise between themselves and in terms thereof the appellant gave up his claim for eviction of the second respondent from the shop cumflat in his occupation.
The High Courts order is challenged in this ap peal.
The peti tion was companytested by both the respondents.
An appeal to the Appellate Authority having failed the first respondent filed a revision to the High Court under Section 15 5 of the Act and succeeded in having the order of eviction set aside.
1984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.
Mr. Anil Dev Singh, learned companynsel for the appellant sought to assail the order of the High Court on various grounds.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
907 of 1977.
907 of 1977 under Section 15 5 of the Act to the High Court.
7 to the second respondent in 1963 and subsequently in 1967 he leased out the adjoining two flats also to him.
3182 Of 1984.
On March 8, 1973 the appellant filed a suit and sought eviction of both the respondents on various grounds but all of them except the ground of unauthorised sub letting were given up.
907 of 1977.
Anil Dev Singh, R.C. Misra and Dr. Meera Aggarwal for the Appellant.
The second respondent sub let the two flats to the first respondent.
Prem Malhotra for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by, NATARAJAN, J. This appeaI by Special Leave is by a landlord and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No.
