GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. GAINDA RAM-PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Faridkot, dated, January 20, 1975, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, directing the ejectment of the tenant was set aside and the application seeking ejectment was dismissed.

(2.) Pritam Singh (deceased) made an ejectment application from the shop in dispute on the allegations that the same has been sub-let by M/s. Gainda Ram-Parkash Chand to M/s. Babu Ram-Sadhu Ram. In the ejectment application no date or approximate time of alleged sub-letting was pleaded. In the written statement filed on behalf of the alleged sub-tenant M/s. Baba Ram-Sadhu Ram, it was pleaded that they are running their business in the shop in dispute by the name of the firm Babu Ram-Sadhu Ram since 1963 with the consent of the petitioners. Before the written statement was filed, an application was also moved with the prayer that the landlord be directed to produce his account books in Court since payment of rent from 1964 on their behalf is entered therein. Inspite of this application, the landlord-petitioners failed to produce his account books and the written statement was filed in the absence of the account books. The Rent Controller accepted the application of the landlord and directed the ejectment of the respondents as it came to the conclusion that original tenant was M/s. Gainda Ram-Parkash Chand and admittedly now none of them is a partner in the firm M/s. Babu Ram-Sadhu Ram and, therefore, they had no authority to sub-let the premises. In appeal this finding of the Rent Controller has been reversed by the Appellate Authority. It came to the conclusion that M/s. Babu Ram-Sadhu Ram have been in possession of the premises in dispute as tenant from the very beginning. However, the partners have been changing and, therefore, there was no question of any sub-letting. Feeling aggrieved against this, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the Appellate Authority has made out absolutely a new case for the respondent M/s. Babu Ram-Sadhu Ram who never pleaded that they are the direct tenants under the landlord and in the absence of any such plea no amount of evidence could be looked into. In support of his contention he cited Siddik Mahomad Shah vs. Mt. Saran and others, 1930 AIR(PC) 57(1) and Mohammed Haneef vs. Smt. Anisa Khatoon and another, 1976 CrLJ 520.