OM PARKASH Vs. FIRM DAYA RAM TEK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been on the regular board of this Court since 18.7.2000. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner despite the fact that the case has been called out repeated on different dates. This Court has no choice but to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has argued at length.

(3.) AFTER framing the issues and granting opportunity to the parties to lead evidence the Rent Controller vide his order dated 20.4.1979 dismissed the petition and answered the issues against the petitioner. As far as non- payment of rent is concerned, the tenants had paid the rent on the first date of hearing along with interest as directed by the Court. Resultantly, this ground became infructuous. On other issues it was held that the sub-tenant was not a necessary party. However, other grounds were found having no merit, resulting in dismissal of the petition. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the findings arrived at by the learned Rent Controller. In fact during the pendency of the petition, a local Commissioner was appointed. The report of the local Commissioner dated 3.3.1979 was filed on the record of the Court and it was proved that all the members were carrying on the business in the demised premises and were in possession of the property in question. As far as ground of sub-tenancy was concerned, it was found as a matter of fact that Kishan Dayal was a watchman appointed by the tenants and he had nothing to do with the premises in question.