(1.) THIS is tenants' revision directed against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby the appeal of the landlord was allowed and the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment petition of the landlord, was set aside.
(2.) EJECTMENT of the tenants was sought on various grounds including that of sub-letting by Pala Ram to his brother Bhajan Lal. In the petition, it was claimed that the premises in dispute being residential are required by the landlord for the residence of his son as his son did not possess any other accommodation within the municipal limits. It was also pleaded that Pala Ram has sublet the premises to Bhajan Lal without the written consent of the landlord. Petitioners in their written statement denied that the premises in dispute are residential or the same were required by the landlord for the residence of his son. The ground of sub-letting was also denied.
(3.) THE Rent Controller, of appreciation of the evidence on record, found that since the inception of the tenancy, premises were being used for the purpose of business and, therefore, cannot be got vacated on the ground of personal necessity. Otherwise also, the Rent Controller was of the view that the accommodation in possession of the landlord was sufficient and ejectment of tenants cannot be ordered on that score. The ground of subletting was also found against the landlord. Landlord preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. In appeal, only the ground of subletting was challenged. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the landlord primarily on the ground that the tenant, who had taken the plea of partnership between him and Bhajan Lal did not bring on record the Partnership Deed as well as books of account which could prove partnership and in absence of production of said documents, inference of sub tenancy can be drawn. Consequently, the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. Petitioners have challenged the order of the Appellate Authority in this civil revision.