(1.) LEGAL representatives of Summat Parshad Jain - petitioners have filed the present revision petition directed against the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, Rohtak dated November 8, 1979 and of the appellate authority, Rohtak dated April 3, 1981. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition for eviction. The said order was upheld by the appellate authority.
(2.) THE facts alleged are that respondent No. 1 Murari Lal Jain was stated to be the tenant in the property. A rent note is stated to have been executed dated December 29, 1951. Petitioners claimed ejectment on the ground that arrears of rent have not been paid and that respondent No. 1 has sublet the premises and drawn his tenancy rights to Sham Lal Jain - respondent No. 2, who is in actual possession of the suit premises.
(3.) THE learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and held that property in question had not been sublet. The petition was dismissed. The petitioners preferred an appeal. The learned appellate authority scanned through the evidence and concluded that respondent No. 1 continued to be a partner and thus it cannot be termed that there is subletting of the property in question. The appeal failed and hence, the present revision petition.