It was pointed out that the Local Commissioner had reported that on his inspection in the presence of the parties, he found that the tailor Master Lachman Singh was operating as a tailor from the point shown in the site plan of the shop room and that he had got a sewing machine plied by feet fixed to the said spot.
The appellant No.1 submitted that the report of the local companymissioner had been wrongly interpreted by the High Court, inasmuch as, it amply proved that a portion of the shop room had been sublet to Lachhman Singh.
The facts relating to the filing of the eviction petition are set out in brief hereinbelow.
It is against the said order of the High Court that the present Special Leave Petition has been filed.
It was also alleged that the companyduct of the tenant was a companystant nuisance number only to the landlord but also to the neighbours as well and that the landlord wanted to companystruct a first floor on the demised premises, which was being obstructed by the tenant.
The Rent Controller dismissed the application on 13.8.1983 and against such order of dismissal of his petition the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
By the said judgment, the High Court set aside the order dated 25th October, 1983, passed by the Appellate Authority and restored the order dated 13th August, 1983, passed by the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant landlords petition for eviction of the respondents under Section 13 of the 1949 Act.
A separate ground as to creation of sub tenancy was also pleaded along with some other grounds relating to installation of electric meter and an attempt being made by the tenant to establish his own title to the suit property.
The tenant, the respondent No.1 herein, was directed to put the landlord appellant in possession of the tenanted premises within three months.
2250 of 1984 filed under Section 15 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, hereinafter called the 1949 Act .
One Smt.
The respondent No.1/tenant filed Civil Revision No.
The appellant No.1 urged that during the hearing of the application filed before the Rent Controller under Section 13 of the 1949 Act, the Rent Controller had appointed a Local Commissioner on 15th June, 1982, to visit the locale and to report the factual position regarding the use of the portion of the demised premises by Lachman Singh working as a tailor and as to whether, he had affixed his sewing machine, plied by feet, on the floor at a particular point in the site plan.
2250 of 1984 before the High Court against the order of the Appellate Authority and the same was allowed on the finding that by allowing a tailor, even on payment, to sit in a part of the shop room with his sewing machine, while retaining his possession and rights as a tenant over the premises leased to him, the respondent No.1/tenant did number create a sub lease and the tailor companyld at best be said to be a licensee.
Ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenant had number paid the rents for the tenanted shop room from 2nd March, 1982, till 15th June, 1982, when the eviction petition was filed.
Altamas Kabir,J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th January, 2002, passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No.
