DHARMPUAL Vs. VINOD KUMAR MATHRAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment both the revision petitions namely Civil Revision Nos. 3555 and 3704 of 1997 can conveniently be dispose of together. Both the revisions are directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Dhuri dated 6.10.1995 and of the Appellate Authority, Sangrur dated 13.3.1997 and the other against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Dhuri of the same date and of the Appellate Authority also of 13.3.1997. The parties are the same.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that petitioner had filed an eviction petition against the respondents with respect to the property in dispute. The sole surviving ground which requires consideration is if respondent No. 1 Vinod Kumar Mathra Wala had sublet the premises and parted with the same to respondent No. 2 or not. It had been asserted that respondent No. 1 is not working in the property for a period of 4 to 5 years before filing of the petition and it is respondent No. 2 who is in possession and carrying on business therein. Respondent No. 2 in this process was described to be a sub-tenant without written consent of the petitioner. Respondents had filed a joint written statement. It was pleaded that respondent No. 1 is the sole proprietor of the business and respondent No. 2 is a mere employee of respondent No. 1. In this process it was denied that property in question had been sublet or parted with.

(3.) ANOTHER petition for eviction had been filed. Therein also before the learned Appellate Authority a similar ground of eviction had been raised which had been negatived. Reasoning was the same. Aggrieved by the said order, Civil Revision No. 3704 of 1997 has been filed.