HEM RAJ Vs. JAGDISH RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision directed against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby the order of the Rent Controller was set aside and the tenant was ordered to be ejected.

(2.) LANDLORD (respondent herein) filed an ejectment application against the petitioner alleging therein that the shop in dispute was let out to Hem Raj, petitioner No. 1 who has sublet the same to petitioner No. 2 It was specifically alleged that the subletting came into being after 12. 12. 1976 without the consent of the landlord. In reply to this, tenant in his written statement took up the plea that ever since the inception of the tenancy, he has been in possession of the shop and has been doing cloth business in partnership with petitioner No. 2. He denied that he ever sublet the shop to petitioner No. 2.

(3.) RENT Controller, after appreciating the entire evidence on the record, dismissed the ejectment application. The Rent Controller, on the basis of the evidence on record, held that the landlord has failed to establish that petitioner No. 1 has sublet the shop to petitioner No. 2. In consequence thereof the ejectment petition was dismissed. On appeal by the landlord, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller and ordered ejectment of the tenant. This order is being challenged in this civil revision.