BRIJ KISHORE Vs. DR. AMAR NATH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala dated 21 -9 -1951, in an appeal arising out of an ejectment case.

(2.) THE petitioner's allegations were that he let out a house belonging to him to Dr. Amar Nath (respondent No. 1) on 1 -12 -2002 on the monthly rent of Rs. 20/ -. Some time later, Dr. Amar Nath went away to England and during his absence his father, who was a member of joint Hindu family with Dr. Amar Nath sub -let the house to Shri Nihal Singh (respondent No. 2) and, in course of time, Dr. Amar Nath and Shri Nihal Singh gave over the house to Shri Dhani Singh respondent No. 3. On 27 -6 -1950, the petitioner applied to the Rent Controller for ejectment of Dr. Amar Nath and Shri Nihal Singh on the grounds: 1. that the house was no longer in the occupation of Dr. Amar Nath: 2. that the house had been sub -let to Shri Nihal Singh without the written consent of the petitioner and against the provisions of law; and 3. that the rent of the house had not been paid to the petitioner for two months.

(3.) FIRST of all the petitioner's counsel argued that the findings of the Rent Controller as well is the Deputy Commissioner that Shri Nihal Singh rakshak respondent No. 2 never became the subtenant of respondent No. 1, and that respondent So. 1 never sub -let the house to him, were erroneous. He particularly drew my attention to that part of the statement made by Shri Nihal Singh Takshak in which he admitted that his daughters and wife were living in the house and he also occasionally went and lived with them, and urged that this statement taken together with the statement made by respondent No. 1 affirmatively proved that the father of respondent No. 1 sub -let the house to Shri Nihal Singh Takshak.