ATMA RAM Vs. SHYAM SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against order of the Appellate Authority, Bhiwani, dated September 6, 1976, whereby the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the application for ejectment was confirmed.

(2.) The petitioner-landlord sought ejectment of Sham Sunder, respondent No. 1 and Madan Lal respondent No. 2 on the ground that Sham Sunder his tenant has not paid the arrears of rent and had sub-let shop to respondent No. 2. The plea raised by Madan Lal, respondent was that he was a direct tenant under the petitioner, Atma Ram, and the story of sub-letting was a camouflage conceived by the petitioner and respondent No. 1 who are father and son, to eject him. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority recorded a concurrent finding that Madan Lal was a direct tenant under Atma Ram. No legal infirmity, has been pointed out in that finding which could warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional powers.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that respondent No. 2 was liable to ejectment for non-payment of rent for three years which was claimed to be in arrears, by the petitioner. I am afraid that no such plea is open to the petitioner because his case was only that he had let the shop to Sham Sunder who was liable to ejectment for non-payment and sub-letting. The moment it was found that Shani Sunder was not a tenant of the petitioner nothing more remained to be decided so far as the petition of the landlord was concerned. Even otherwise there is no merit in the said contention because no argument was raised in the lower appellate Court that any rent was due from Madan Lal or that he was liable to be ejected on that score. I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain any such argument at this stage.