RADHEY SHYAM Vs. VINODI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority dismissing the petition filed by petitioner/landlords under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act seeking eviction of the respondents on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-letting the premises in dispute. On the crucial issue of sub-letting, which is the only issue passed into service during the course of arguments before me, learned Appellate Authority observed as follows :-

(2.) ALL that Mr. Punia, learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this revision could urge was that the appellate authority did not examine Ex. A-8 which tilts the balance in favour of the petitioners. I am afraid, this contention at this stage cannot be permitted to be raised. Ex. A-8 had not been pressed into service in either of the Courts below to seek eviction of the respondents. That apart, over-whelming evidence discussed by the courts below would clearly point to the fact that the so-called sub-tenant came to occupy the premises in dispute in any case only after one and half years from the commencement of the tenancy and for so many years, no objection to his tenancy was raised by the petitioners.