HOWNA RAM Vs. PURSHOTTAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS PETITION IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2003, OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL (FOR SHORT "THE TRIBUNAL) IN RCA NO. 51/2002, WHICH APPEAL AROSE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER DATED 5TH AUGUST, 2002, WHEREBY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER HAS ALLOWED THE PETITION FILED BY THE LANDLORD BY HOLDING THAT THE TENANT HAD SUBLET/ASSIGNED OR OTHERWISE PARTED WITH POSSESSION OF THE SUIT PREMISES RENTED OUT TO HIM BY THE LANDLORD. THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS AFORESAID JUDGMENT HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY CONCURRING WITH THE FINDINGS ARRIVED AT BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER.

(2.) THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, ARE AS UNDER :

(3.) COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS SUBMITS THAT IT WAS NOT PROPER FOR THE COURTS BELOW TO HAVE RELIED UPON THE REPORT OF THE LOCAL COMMISSIONER AND SITE PLAN EX.PW1/B SINCE THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN TESTED BY CROSS-EXAMINATION. COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS NO PARTING WITH POSSESSION SINCE THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE MATERIAL LYING ON PROPERTY IN QUESTION BELONG TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE PETITIONERS.